An era between Classical and Medieval (200 - 900 AD) - Early Medieval/Migration Age

[Krajzen]

The period also infamously known as"Dark Ages" in Europe.
I have done a similar thread for Humankind already - https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...an-age-between-classical-and-medieval.658899/

Now, civ series don't have era - specific playable factions, unlike Humankind, but still. In Humankind there is this weird mix of Huns and Goths with Greeks and Romans in classical on one hand, and Franks with Mongols in medieval on the other hand. This has inspired me to think: why do we exactly throw one thousand years into one arbitrary era, if we could divide it into at least two cool eras?
I am recently reading about this period and really, every game like this should introduce distinction between
Classical (roughly equivalent to 600 BC - 200 AD)
Early Medieval (200 AD - 900 AD)
Medieval (900 AD - 1453 AD)

Why?
Because this period is amazing and very different both from Hoplites, Legions, Maurya, Confucius as well as from Feudalism, Knights, Plate Armor, Crusades, Gunpowder, Mongols etc.
"Middle ages" shouldn't really be an uniform, singular age just because they were disrespected by renaissance Italians lol.
So, what is this period about, immersion wise?
Late Rome, Early Byzantium, Constantine, Justinian, Huns, Goths, Migration Period, Franks, Picts, Sasanians,Charlemagne, Anglo - Saxons, Pagan Vikings, Early Slavs, Rise of Islam, Khazars, Three Kingdoms, Tang Dynasty. Time of climate changes, mass migrations, chaos, but also rise of almighty religions, new cultures and empires, new technologies and kinds of societies (proto feudalisms, khanates, theocracies...). And don't tell me "no technologies for this era because Dark Ages myth" but read for inspiration about this period and discover (even in "collapsing" Europe). Filling this era with techs, policies, wonders, units and new mechanical dynamism wouldnt be a problem at all.

Civ6 has infamously weird unit progression across eras, but really it was strange even in civ5. Isn't it weird, immersion wise, how do we instantly jump from those most primitive spearmen and horsemen to full plate armor, super heavy cavalry, pikemen etc? It could look much more natural, like

Spearman [Bronze/iron age style)
Spear levy [significantly heavier; cross between late Roman garrisons, Germanic/Slavic spear heavy infantry and Chinese imperial forces]
Pikemen [Swiss/Italian style, advanced]

Horseman [still not that heavy cavalry due to lack of stirrups etc; hetairoi didn't really frontally charge at heavy infantry]
Cataphtact [Iranian proto - knight super heavy cavalry, very influential for the history of warfare, for entire western half of Eurasia, feared even by elite legions]
Knight [high medieval "proper" heavy cavalry; faster and better at prolonged melee than unwieldly cataphract]

And so on.

And don't tell me dividing 1000 year age into two radically different periods (compare Eurasia AD 500 and AD 1100 and you have two incredibly different worlds) is too nitpicky when we have modern era, atomic era, informatic era and future era covering like 150 years and the least cool part of the game (endgame).

 

[Nizou]

I totally agree, we lack an intermediate Era between Classical and Medieval, and finding things to put in it would be pretty easy. Problem is that if I heard well, its harcoded and modders nedd the DLL to do that.

 

[Krajzen]

I suspect so, let's then start the movement to get it on the new game

 

[Sirsquier]

I think the biggest mistake comes from also clumping the exploration age (lates 1500s - mid 1700s) with the late renaissance and early information.

 

[The googles do nothing]

I suspect so, let's then start the movement to get it on the new game

Rather then going all the way to future eras on release Civ7 should end at about 1650. Still the same number of eras. Release the 'late game' as an expansion.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Actually i'm favoring Renaissance and 'Enlightenment Era' over a period between the Fall of Rome and the First Crusades.
But if you insists, this means 'Middle Ages' should have 'Plate Armor' tech instead of stirrups. while Early Medieval (what should be a proper name?) should be an era which fighting men wears maile armor (scalemail and chainmail) and anticav/'infantry' class unit should be 'Sergeant' (or what's proper name of spearman in maile armor and kite shield?)
In addition, new archer unit should come in place and Trebuchet should appear here.
With this. gunpowder should appear in late medieval and the first gunpowder units are
- Bombard. (Siege)
- Culverin field gun. (ranged)

And by Renaissance. distinctions between Melee and Anticav should end. and thus comes combined class. the 'Infantry' class (I like this name over 'gunpowder' class but basically both are the SAME as in previous civ games.) Musketeers before Canonry? that's absurd (馬鹿者).

 

[Sirsquier]

Actually i'm favoring Renaissance and 'Enlightenment Era' over a period between the Fall of Rome and the First Crusades.
But if you insists, this means 'Middle Ages' should have 'Plate Armor' tech instead of stirrups. while Early Medieval (what should be a proper name?) should be an era which fighting men wears maile armor (scalemail and chainmail) and anticav/'infantry' class unit should be 'Sergeant' (or what's proper name of spearman in maile armor and kite shield?)
In addition, new archer unit should come in place and Trebuchet should appear here.
With this. gunpowder should appear in late medieval and the first gunpowder units are
- Bombard. (Siege)
- Culverin field gun. (ranged)

And by Renaissance. distinctions between Melee and Anticav should end. and thus comes combined class. the 'Infantry' class (I like this name over 'gunpowder' class but basically both are the SAME as in previous civ games.) Musketeers before Canonry? that's absurd (馬鹿者).

Scalemail was like never used. (It was but rarely).
Honestly I agree that a Enlightenment/Exploration Era between renaissance and industrial would be more important than a early medieval.

 

[civfan_999]

I would just like the early eras to last longer. It seems like you just start using bombards and next thing you know they are artillery and you barley take a city or two and you are already at rocket artillery. Maybe by that point in the game, I just have A LOT of science, but I'm also using playing a bit of catch up on the science tree with a couple AIs on emperor or immortal, so I can't be going too hard.

I'd be happy to see extra levels added to the tech tree, but a very simply fix to this probelm in civ 6 is to just increase the amount of science required to research certain techs relative to others. The early game seems to go at a decent pace, but the mid game just blows by, to the point that I seem to jump over a lot of military. Upgrading them and then barley using them before its time for another upgrade.

 

[Sirsquier]

I would just like the early eras to last longer. It seems like you just start using bombards and next thing you know they are artillery and you barley take a city or two and you are already at rocket artillery. Maybe by that point in the game, I just have A LOT of science, but I'm also using playing a bit of catch up on the science tree with a couple AIs on emperor or immortal, so I can't be going too hard.

I'd be happy to see extra levels added to the tech tree, but a very simply fix to this probelm in civ 6 is to just increase the amount of science required to research certain techs relative to others. The early game seems to go at a decent pace, but the mid game just blows by, to the point that I seem to jump over a lot of military. Upgrading them and then barley using them before its time for another upgrade.

I've noticed this too.

 

[ABI3]

I absolutelly agree we are missing the early middle ages represented in game, it’s just weird having Heavy Chariots upgrade all way up to knigths from the late middle ages.
I also think it shouldn’t be called dark age, because for certain people it could look like a dark age, but for others it was just golden age, such as for the Arabians and the Mesoamericans.

I also think there’s another era missing, one era for the Enlightment age. It would be an era between the renaissance and the industrial age. To me the jump from renaissance to industrial feels also really weird. I feel there’s an era missing to represent the time of rationalism, the encyclopedia, the beginning of new republics and line infantry battles slowly shooting at each other.
To me it would be something like:
-Renaissance (late 1400’s – mid 1650’s ) So this is basically the era on which traditional medieval warfare ends and gunpowder starts to play an important role. The Pike and Shot era from the early landsknetchs and swiss pikemen passing through the Spanish tercios to late and more flexible Dutch and Swedish formations.
-Enlightment (mid 1650’s – 1830’s) Now this a totally different time from the renaissance, in politics, science, warfare and religion. Religion stops being that important, religious wars are not as important as they were during the medieval time and renaissance. And also warfare has changed, the development of flintlocks and bayonets makes armor and pikes obsolete. Steam power would start to appear by the end of this era.
- Industrial (1830’s – late 1890’s) Industrial age, now the industry is present in many aspects of life and is starting to change world’s life. This is the era of great expansionism and colonialism, the advantages industrial nations have over non industrial ones can generate colonial wars. But there should also be ways for nations to catch up just as Japan did their modernization in a 20 years program.

This are my thoughts on this eras feel free to comment.

Also as a work around for this gaps between eras I found that enabling the extended eras, extended techtree and extended warfare mod makes the game more immersive. You got more units, more technologies, so its not that easy to rush 2 eras ahead from other civs, and you just have enough time to build wonders, create units and enjoy the era you are playing at that moment. So you guys may want to try it out.

 

[Zaarin]

Scalemail was like never used. (It was but rarely).

It most certainly was. Scale mail and the closely related lamellar armor were extremely important in the Ancient Near East and Central/South Asia. Even the Romans used it (lorica squamata). It continued to be used in East Asia and Siberia throughout history. Most samurai armor was lamellar.

 

[Sirsquier]

I absolutelly agree we are missing the early middle ages represented in game, it’s just weird having Heavy Chariots upgrade all way up to knigths from the late middle ages.
I also think it shouldn’t be called dark age, because for certain people it could look like a dark age, but for others it was just golden age, such as for the Arabians and the Mesoamericans.

I also think there’s another era missing, one era for the Enlightment age. It would be an era between the renaissance and the industrial age. To me the jump from renaissance to industrial feels also really weird. I feel there’s an era missing to represent the time of rationalism, the encyclopedia, the beginning of new republics and line infantry battles slowly shooting at each other.
To me it would be something like:
-Renaissance (late 1400’s – mid 1650’s ) So this is basically the era on which traditional medieval warfare ends and gunpowder starts to play an important role. The Pike and Shot era from the early landsknetchs and swiss pikemen passing through the Spanish tercios to late and more flexible Dutch and Swedish formations.
-Enlightment (mid 1650’s – 1830’s) Now this a totally different time from the renaissance, in politics, science, warfare and religion. Religion stops being that important, religious wars are not as important as they were during the medieval time and renaissance. And also warfare has changed, the development of flintlocks and bayonets makes armor and pikes obsolete. Steam power would start to appear by the end of this era.
- Industrial (1830’s – late 1890’s) Industrial age, now the industry is present in many aspects of life and is starting to change world’s life. This is the era of great expansionism and colonialism, the advantages industrial nations have over non industrial ones can generate colonial wars. But there should also be ways for nations to catch up just as Japan did their modernization in a 20 years program.

This are my thoughts on this eras feel free to comment.

Also as a work around for this gaps between eras I found that enabling the extended eras, extended techtree and extended warfare mod makes the game more immersive. You got more units, more technologies, so its not that easy to rush 2 eras ahead from other civs, and you just have enough time to build wonders, create units and enjoy the era you are playing at that moment. So you guys may want to try it out.

I agree. I feel my exploration era is basically the same as your Enlightenment. Another note is that the more modern eras were far shorter.

It most certainly was. Scale mail and the closely related lamellar armor were extremely important in the Ancient Near East and Central/South Asia. Even the Romans used it (lorica squamata). It continued to be used in East Asia and Siberia throughout history. Most samurai armor was lamellar.

lamellar and scalemale are completely different. Lamellar was very common where as scalemale was not.

Lamellar:

Scale Maile:

 

[Zaarin]

lamellar and scalemale are completely different. Lamellar was very common where as scalemale was not.

They're closely related. Scale mail was rare in Europe, but it was not rare in Asia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As much as I like the idea in Humankind, I don't think Civ needs it. The primarily reason I would want it is to at least get 10 more cultures in the game.
It doesn't do any good in Civ.
I would take an "Enlightenment Era" between Renaissance and Industrial though, corresponding roughly around the 1650s to 1750s that the Renaissance is still supposed to represent in game.

 

[Buktu]

I would just like the early eras to last longer. It seems like you just start using bombards and next thing you know they are artillery and you barley take a city or two and you are already at rocket artillery. Maybe by that point in the game, I just have A LOT of science, but I'm also using playing a bit of catch up on the science tree with a couple AIs on emperor or immortal, so I can't be going too hard.

I'd be happy to see extra levels added to the tech tree, but a very simply fix to this probelm in civ 6 is to just increase the amount of science required to research certain techs relative to others. The early game seems to go at a decent pace, but the mid game just blows by, to the point that I seem to jump over a lot of military. Upgrading them and then barley using them before its time for another upgrade.

Just making techs/civics more expensive will help units to stay relevant for a longer period of time. But there are also downsides for other parts of the game. The costs of everything in the game is optimized for the tech costs now. If you increase the tech costs without changing anything else you will just run out of stuff to build. Settlers? Later in the game nearly all spots on the map are taken. New buildings? You have to wait longer until you unlock the next ones. Builders? At one point you will run out on tiles to improve or chop. Wonders? Maybe, but you don't really need too much wonders for your chosen victory type so alot of them will have pretty little value for you. Units? Since the change is made for warmongering maybe - but why would you build insane amounts of units when you are not planning to go to war? City projects? Most likely the things I would spend my free production on. But why should I be increase the costs of techs just to build projects to speed them up? This sounds like going for a science victory, starting the exoplanet mission and then having to wait until you finally find the speed up projects to have something to work on again - which makes a boring (compared to the rest of the game) lategame even more boring if you are not playing domination.
What if you scale up the rest of the costs as well? Then you just get the game at a slower game speed. Maybe you can test if this works for you?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

They're closely related. Scale mail was rare in Europe, but it was not rare in Asia.

So what are the armors of swordsmen in civ6? are they considered a maile armor? or leather lamella?

 

[Zaarin]

So what are the armors of swordsmen in civ6? are they considered a maile armor? or leather lamella?

TBH I've never looked close enough to notice, and Google isn't being very helpful.

 

[civfan_999]

I would just like the early eras to last longer. It seems like you just start using bombards and next thing you know they are artillery and you barley take a city or two and you are already at rocket artillery. Maybe by that point in the game, I just have A LOT of science, but I'm also using playing a bit of catch up on the science tree with a couple AIs on emperor or immortal, so I can't be going too hard.

I'd be happy to see extra levels added to the tech tree, but a very simply fix to this probelm in civ 6 is to just increase the amount of science required to research certain techs relative to others. The early game seems to go at a decent pace, but the mid game just blows by, to the point that I seem to jump over a lot of military. Upgrading them and then barley using them before its time for another upgrade.

Just making techs/civics more expensive will help units to stay relevant for a longer period of time. But there are also downsides for other parts of the game. The costs of everything in the game is optimized for the tech costs now. If you increase the tech costs without changing anything else you will just run out of stuff to build. Settlers? Later in the game nearly all spots on the map are taken. New buildings? You have to wait longer until you unlock the next ones. Builders? At one point you will run out on tiles to improve or chop. Wonders? Maybe, but you don't really need too much wonders for your chosen victory type so alot of them will have pretty little value for you. Units? Since the change is made for warmongering maybe - but why would you build insane amounts of units when you are not planning to go to war? City projects? Most likely the things I would spend my free production on. But why should I be increase the costs of techs just to build projects to speed them up? This sounds like going for a science victory, starting the exoplanet mission and then having to wait until you finally find the speed up projects to have something to work on again - which makes a boring (compared to the rest of the game) lategame even more boring if you are not playing domination.
What if you scale up the rest of the costs as well? Then you just get the game at a slower game speed. Maybe you can test if this works for you?

Fair point. But I'm not suggesting making everything cost more tech. I think at least the first half of the game or so is fairly well balanced. I guess this suggestion would require further tweeks. Maybe some new buildings are also introduced in the eras where tech is slowed down. That way there are still buildings to build for those who don't want to be making units.

 

[Krajzen]

It doesn't do any good in Civ.
I would take an "Enlightenment Era" between Renaissance and Industrial though, corresponding roughly around the 1650s to 1750s that the Renaissance is still supposed to represent in game.

So you don't think it does any good in civ, introducing a new era lasting 600 - 700 years, but you'd love to see a new era lasting 100 years?

Personally I think adding one more pre - modern era would do two good things in Civ game:
1) Make technological progression of units more gradual and elegant, going steadily from Iron Age Warriors to Plate Armor Mercenaries, instead of making it the sudden jump between those two. It is very jarring. I think it is much, much better case than the bizarre civ5 idea to shove WW1 era units lasting 5 minutes in game between industrial and WW2 era units (literally One War Unit Lineup).
2) Make earlier eras last longer, especially next to the ridiculous amount of 20th - 21st century eras in recent civ games (Modern, Atomic, Information and Future). Why does it matter? Because everybody prefers early game from late game in this kind of games, and because I'd be ready to bet most of people find earlier eras more 'fun', 'cool' and exotic than a ton of 1900 - 2100 eras taking disproportional amount of game's length. Personally I'd reduce those four late eras into two late eras (Modern and Information ages) and introduce Early Medieval instead, to make for a more balanced timeline.

Also, potentially, but that would require certain hypothetical design
3) If each era came with its own gameplay design/mechanics/vibe, then the Migration period would be the excellent way to "refresh" the game session and once again bring back the excitement of early game. Let me explain why. The Migration Period is the perfect excuse for "shaking up" the in - game world, destabilizing empires, introducing chaos, new factions, new mechanics (migrating peoples, stronger barbarians, horse lords, emergence of powerful religions, natural climatic changes etc) and introducing more dynamism into the game.

Ancient era - very early game, everybody establishes
Classical era - we unlock some more advanced options, first big empires are born
Early medieval era - we shake up the world, topple some old powers, introduce new factions; first mechanical attempt at disabling linear snowballing "if you thrive in a Classical age, you thrive forever"
Medieval era - we restore the world to much bigger diversity and advancement than before
Early modern era (1450 - 1700) - we enable ocean travel and 'globalization' mechanics
Industrial era - we introduce massive Industrialization mechanic which once again meddles in the Civ 6 problem of linear snowballing - industiral and scientific revolution is a painful process, the more the bigger your empire, and a crucial power step, where all industrialized powers crush all non industrial powers
Modern era - dust settles, final set of superpowers are established, world wars, ideology wars
Information era - endgame, pursuit of victory conditions, summary of the world's history (game session)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also, potentially, but that would require certain hypothetical design
3) If each era came with its own gameplay design/mechanics/vibe, then the Migration period would be the excellent way to "refresh" the game session and once again bring back the excitement of early game. Let me explain why. The Migration Period is the perfect excuse for "shaking up" the in - game world, destabilizing empires, introducing chaos, new factions, new mechanics (migrating peoples, stronger barbarians, horse lords, emergence of powerful religions, natural climatic changes etc) and introducing more dynamism into the game.

Instead of making part of the base game that would sound like an appealing game mode maybe simulating the "fall of Rome" at least. I don't know if it needs to be a whole new era though.