C2C : Game Speed

[EldrinFal]

I think the 'generally known' as the founding dates makes perfect sense...

As far as I know the game ignores signal towers completely... worse if you believe a certian legend from India... Summerians were rather late to the game. In this legeend the gods fight in chariots... using what sounds like Macross missle spam techniques.

Hah! I wonder how many people know what that is. I DO!

Oh, and the end date in vanilla BTS is not actually arbitrary... its scripted. I did this multiple games and the same thing kept happening. Ever notice that you can keep playing after you win? I've done that for decades after I one. A funny thing always happened. I ended up on a desert planet. No exceptions.

You'll notice that happens if you just nuke the planet... it ends up an unrecoverable desert covered in toxic waste. I forgoed nukes and over ran the planet with conventional forces... had only 5 cities on the planet... rand a green as possible.... still ended up in a sunlivable and box.

I'm not sure of the specifics, but apparently the games has a climate model that forces the planet into a desert wastleland. Its going to happen and you can't stop it. So the end date for time conquest is designed to keep you from noticing this.

Isn't that from Global Warming?

I established the beginning of the game at 12000BC but after later research I think it should be about 300,000BC for the emergence of the Homo Sapien. We can debate that still a bit I'm sure.

That is a big difference! Maybe AIAndy or Koshling can chime in on whether that is even feasible in the code. I think strategyonly would have to comment on that as well.

Sumeria, the beginning of known civilization, arose in 6000BC so I considered 6000BC to be the start of the Ancient Era - I should review what techs we have set to progress a player to the ancient era before hazarding a guess which one should be the zero point concept there. I believe my wife and I usually find ourselves entering the ancient era with Mysticism, which does make some sense if we consider that the ability to spread the concept of a 'religion' at all was perhaps what made it possible to organize a society - that's what they were teaching in Soc 101 anyhow. (Of course, that religion was what we would call Mesopotamianism and mysticism and Animism would've come long long before that and Hinduism would've been hand in hand with the Caste System... but I haven't made those points loudly because we haven't paved the way for that conversation much.)

Anyhoo... then we have the Ancient era progressing to Classical and that'd be primarily earmarked by the rise and fall of Babylon, the emergence of Judaism and Monotheism, and Greek philosophy. Soooo... something in there. Not sure which tech to mark for all that but I think we're getting into some more rational (and perhaps because its better taught by our modern education systems and leaves less to theoretical conjecture) tech progressions at this point on our tech tree. Again, we should pull up the techs that are set to lead us into that era and figure out which is most central and humanly datable with some research. But I figure it'd be about year 2000BC.

Then the next category would be crossed at 0 AD and we jump right into the middle ages. And ok, sure Theology may be as others have said, widely recognized as being in practice around 25 AD or so or maybe even after, and the establishment of the Christian religion surely does come AFTER Christ was born and made his big impact in the world... BUT we can also just simplify and look at AD as After Death and BC as Before Christ so in that perspective, Theology makes a good zero point.

The middle ages was a very long and drawn out period where technology was vastly hindered by political systems that wanted to maintain control and had to strategize against the people's hunger for knowledge to keep them in the dark enough to keep them under the thumb of their dogmas. That said, we still took vast steps in some technologies, particularly that of war, as conflict was rife and constant as the common man served powerful masters who played complex games of court intrigue and dominance.

Then we enter the Rennaissance. Why? Because we began to throw off the shackles of the church dogmas in little ways here and there. This opened us up to finally spreading our wings as people in all areas of human development. As for WHEN this began to take place, it was probably most encapsulated in Martin Luther's break from the Catholic Church and that was about 1500 (1520 to be precise but in game measurements 1500 would fit best). What tech would that be? After some thought, Copernicus's life zeroed out at about 1500 as well, which would indicate that Astronomy could be considered the basic turning point that defined the entry into the Rennaissance.

The end of the Rennaissance saw the birth of the real Age of Exploration and Colonization, around 1700. I'd think Flintlock defined that - Musketmen...

Then around 1800 we see the birth of Representative Democracy (US). But that would take place in the same game era as above really so we can consider the assembly line and the introduction into the industrial era in about 1850 that really defines the next shift or so.

I'm not sure what I established from there in my considerations on game time... maybe that's a good place to start from for now.

I guess in summary, and to go look at Praetyre's concept above, I suggest something along the lines of:

Spoiler :

Prehistoric: 12000- 6000 BC
Ancient: 6000-2000 BC
Classical: 2000-0 AD
Medieval: 0-1500 AD
Renaissance: 1500-1700 AD
Colonial Era: 1700-1800 AD
Industrial 1800-1900 AD
Wild West-World Wars: 1900-1950 AD
Space Age: 1950-2000 AD
Information Age: 2000-2100 AD
Transhuman/Cybertronic Era: 2100-2250 AD
Robotic Era: 2250-2500 AD
Galactic Era: 2500-3000 AD

to get to the end of the game.

I think there are some additional Ages you've tossed in there. Can you break it down to the ones we have?

That was a good romp through history, btw. I think there might be something to starting at an earlier year if both you and Praetyre are suggesting it.

 

[Praetyre]

That is a big difference! Maybe AIAndy or Koshling can chime in on whether that is even feasible in the code. I think strategyonly would have to comment on that as well.

The years themselves aren't actually what's important. They are cosmetic effects that are useful for the purpose of benchmarking the real question; how many turns should each era take, on average, given the research output of a high-tier civilization?. I can easily edit the turns to have it go 30,000 years a turn if you want a 10 turn Prehistoric era starting at 300,000 BC. The dates are meaningless (as far as I know) to the game engine, other than the month restriction AIAndy seems to have nixed. It's a cart-and-horse situation.

Certainly things have been changed a lot since I worked on this file.

Ok, so I think I understand your question... let me hazard an answer.

I established the beginning of the game at 12000BC but after later research I think it should be about 300,000BC for the emergence of the Homo Sapien. We can debate that still a bit I'm sure.

I must disagree on this one. At some point between 69,000 and 77,000 BC, there was a giant volcanic eruption that devastated human populations. My 50,000 BC start date avoids the obvious problems with modeling human migration (especially depending on which theory you go with), and it's the earliest nice round number that allows quite a few existing distinct peoples at game start. The only real issue with it is the absence of the ice ages, but that's the same issue you get with the Neanderthals and Mammoths in 12,000 BC, and I'm sure it'd be possible to script the game's climate model to give you something equivalent to it.

Furthermore, modern humanity dates to about 200,000 BC, so I don't see where you're going with that 300,000 date.

The middle ages was a very long and drawn out period where technology was vastly hindered by political systems that wanted to maintain control and had to strategize against the people's hunger for knowledge to keep them in the dark enough to keep them under the thumb of their dogmas. That said, we still took vast steps in some technologies, particularly that of war, as conflict was rife and constant as the common man served powerful masters who played complex games of court intrigue and dominance.

Most historians regard the "Dark" Ages as simply an unfortunate term of common usage that refers to an age that was really only "Dark" in the sense of little information being available on it. The medieval stagnation you're referring to is largely a product of Victorian revisionism; the time most people think of as the "Middle Ages" lasted for a shorter time than the Renaissance, and the "Age of Chivalry" was even shorter than that.

Then we enter the Rennaissance. Why? Because we began to throw off the shackles of the church dogmas in little ways here and there. This opened us up to finally spreading our wings as people in all areas of human development. As for WHEN this began to take place, it was probably most encapsulated in Martin Luther's break from the Catholic Church and that was about 1500 (1520 to be precise but in game measurements 1500 would fit best). What tech would that be? After some thought, Copernicus's life zeroed out at about 1500 as well, which would indicate that Astronomy could be considered the basic turning point that defined the entry into the Rennaissance.

My dating of the Renaissance at 1400 is actually quite conservative; some reckon it as beginning as early as 1300. It's also a touch unfair to describe the Renaissance as the "throwing off of the shackles of the church dogmas"; had medieval monks not painstakingly preserved and replicated Greek and Roman manuscripts (particularily the works of Aristotle), it's doubtful the Renaissance could have occured so quickly. Many of the great works of the Renaissance, furthermore, were religious in nature. But that's getting off topic. 1500 could work, but the general consensus is that the Renaissance began in Florence in the 14th century, so 1400 seems better as a compromise between the two.

The end of the Rennaissance saw the birth of the real Age of Exploration and Colonization, around 1700. I'd think Flintlock defined that - Musketmen...

We're going by the in-game eras here, so unless you want to suggest a new division, I'd say it still falls under the Renaissance. The Renaissance is quite Eurocentric as it is, though admittedly China and some other powers were also conducting exploration and colonization at this time. Most historians, though, place the Age of Discovery between the early 15th and early 17th centuries; with Industrial coming next (and seeing as Assembly Line and Marxism are second tier techs there, I think it's pretty obvious it's meant to be the Victorian/Gilded/post-Napoleonic age), that stretches the Renaissance period further to 1800.

Although, on the first note, I can effectively have different eras by having different turn intervals for particular periods; that's what I do for the 1800-1900 vs 1900-1950 period, even though they both fall under Industrial.

Then around 1800 we see the birth of Representative Democracy (US). But that would take place in the same game era as above really so we can consider the assembly line and the introduction into the industrial era in about 1850 that really defines the next shift or so.

Possibly... I guess I went with 1800 based on my fondness for numbers ending in double-ohs. That would, in my plan, result in a 1 year per turn Renaissance (twice as fast as it's previous incarnation), but in exchange, you'd get a 1 month per turn Early Industrial era.

I guess in summary, and to go look at Praetyre's concept above, I suggest something along the lines of:

Spoiler :

Prehistoric: 12000- 6000 BC
Ancient: 6000-2000 BC
Classical: 2000-0 AD
Medieval: 0-1500 AD
Renaissance: 1500-1700 AD
Colonial Era: 1700-1800 AD
Industrial 1800-1900 AD
Wild West-World Wars: 1900-1950 AD
Space Age: 1950-2000 AD
Information Age: 2000-2100 AD
Transhuman/Cybertronic Era: 2100-2250 AD
Robotic Era: 2250-2500 AD
Galactic Era: 2500-3000 AD

to get to the end of the game.

Unless you want to actually work out which techs make these "sub" eras work (for starters, what's the difference between an era based on information, an era based on cyborgs and an era based on robots? Where does the boundary lie?), this will probably be somewhat redundant from an interval perspective. Also, you list Industrial as 1800-1900, but previous cited it as 1850. And the Wild West is definitely 1800-1900; the only thing Wild West about the 1900-1950's was the movies.

 

[BlueGenie]

Starting year could be set to some while after modern humans emigrated from Africa (40'000 years ago) but before neanderthals became extinct (between 30-24'000 years ago). Still shouldn't be massive amounts of neanderthals though as there's no evidence that they ever were many of them, certainly a lot less than the amount of modern humans, but at least it would be realistic to have neanderthals in the game then.
Obviously in C2C they become extinct by modern humans killing them off .
Could be interesting though if interbreeding was introduced; fighting and winning against a neanderthal could have a slight chance of giving a "Civilized Neanderthal" unit that would add 1 pop to a city... After all that's one theory on why they went extinct (though my theory includes more variables) and some neanderthal tribes were most likely near modern humans intelligence (or so the story goes...).

Cheers

 

[EldrinFal]

The years themselves aren't actually what's important. They are cosmetic effects that are useful for the purpose of benchmarking the real question; how many turns should each era take, on average, given the research output of a high-tier civilization?. I can easily edit the turns to have it go 30,000 years a turn if you want a 10 turn Prehistoric era starting at 300,000 BC. The dates are meaningless (as far as I know) to the game engine, other than the month restriction AIAndy seems to have nixed. It's a cart-and-horse situation.

I would have thought that except with other issues, spawning particularly, Koshling has stated that Years "normalize" across game speeds whereas turns do not. That is why we see spawn durations based on years and not turns.

If you have each era a set number of turns, then with gamespeed modifiers to research, you're going to discover techs later and later with slower speeds.

But if you base eras on years, then the amt of turns increases per era, then that should (theoretically anyway) continue to match up techs with eras despite additional turns.

 

[Praetyre]

That I am; the tech rate set in the gamespeed is the same, but the costs are edited. The eras are basically enforced by trial and error; I automate for 750 turns in my GEM scenario, save, then run two tests- one an unaided 250 turn automation, another which is also automated but in which I select it so that only technologies from that era are researched. If it takes my model player (originally it was China, but I'm now using India due to their huge-ass population growth rate... Korea is ridiculously overpowered in many of my tests...) around 1000 turns to hit Ancient either way, I transfer my tech costs file to a backup folder and WinMerge it whenever a new version rolls around. Rinse and repeat for future eras, though the inability of automation to make decisions on Revolutions and certain changes to city growth do alter things.

Another note: my private edits to C2C also involve shifting the thresholds for city size requirements. This restricts certain buildings to later in the game, and as such has an impact on research speeds that may be difficult to replicate otherwise.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right on the gamespeed issue; I do not have the exact same number of turns per era, per speed. If I were to apply my work to Snail, as noted, the eras would all be half the length they are on Eternity, since I have Snail as lasting half as long as Eternity. You're certainly correct about the issues with differing speeds, and this is one of the main reasons that my work remains part of a private project, but there is a tech cost modifier in the speeds themselves; one would simply need to establish Eternity as the baseline for that number and half it for each speed going down. One should probably do that for most of the other factors in the game speed variables as well, but tech costs would be a good place to start, as they and growth rates are the most importants determinants of how fast a game progresses.

 

[AIAndy]

The years themselves aren't actually what's important. They are cosmetic effects that are useful for the purpose of benchmarking the real question; how many turns should each era take, on average, given the research output of a high-tier civilization?. I can easily edit the turns to have it go 30,000 years a turn if you want a 10 turn Prehistoric era starting at 300,000 BC. The dates are meaningless (as far as I know) to the game engine, other than the month restriction AIAndy seems to have nixed. It's a cart-and-horse situation.

There are two effects of years:
1. The spawn system uses them to determine when certain spawn rules should be on/off so that needs to be adapted to whatever changes of the years are done.
2. There is a tag which doubles the value of a commerce category on a building after a certain amount of years. Mainly used to double culture after 1000 years on several buildings.

 

[EldrinFal]

There are two effects of years:
1. The spawn system uses them to determine when certain spawn rules should be on/off so that needs to be adapted to whatever changes of the years are done.
2. There is a tag which doubles the value of a commerce category on a building after a certain amount of years. Mainly used to double culture after 1000 years on several buildings.

A lot of the animals start spawning at -50000, which technically doesn't exist, but already covers any time adjustments if we started earlier. Whether either the 200k or 300k BC date is true, I don't think I'd want to set it that far back. It would just shift too far I think. But -30k or -50k is a nice number, and I think considering how slow city growth is now, it makes more sense to spend a little more time in the BCs.

Since I adjusted the Neanderthal spawns, I think I can fairly easily adjust them. But other aspects will need adjusting, as you mention. I'm not sure if the other modders are reading this thread, so I might have to send them a "company memo" to take a look. Since it affects everyone, I don't want to be pulling the rug out from anyone's feet.

I'm not sure I'm reading you right on the gamespeed issue; I do not have the exact same number of turns per era, per speed. If I were to apply my work to Snail, as noted, the eras would all be half the length they are on Eternity, since I have Snail as lasting half as long as Eternity. You're certainly correct about the issues with differing speeds, and this is one of the main reasons that my work remains part of a private project, but there is a tech cost modifier in the speeds themselves; one would simply need to establish Eternity as the baseline for that number and half it for each speed going down. One should probably do that for most of the other factors in the game speed variables as well, but tech costs would be a good place to start, as they and growth rates are the most importants determinants of how fast a game progresses.

I had thought you were using turns as your basis for era length and not years. That's why I mentioned if you locked the # of turns per era across all speeds... well, you'd have games with the same # of turns always, but faster or slower production/research etc.

With years, you CAN lock those in the same across all game speeds, and then adjust # of turns per era-- which I think you suggest in your post. I agree. I think that is the way to go and the way I'm intending, but I just want to get the years to match the eras and also, reasonably, the tech speed, which is going to be the most difficult part.

 

[Thunderbrd]

That's right, # of years should normalize, while # of turns should establish the basis of the fraction that varies by each game speed setting.

I must disagree on this one. At some point between 69,000 and 77,000 BC, there was a giant volcanic eruption that devastated human populations. My 50,000 BC start date avoids the obvious problems with modeling human migration (especially depending on which theory you go with), and it's the earliest nice round number that allows quite a few existing distinct peoples at game start. The only real issue with it is the absence of the ice ages, but that's the same issue you get with the Neanderthals and Mammoths in 12,000 BC, and I'm sure it'd be possible to script the game's climate model to give you something equivalent to it.

Furthermore, modern humanity dates to about 200,000 BC, so I don't see where you're going with that 300,000 date.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with you on 200000BC and admit I was pulling the # off the top of my head (been a while since I threw in the research there.)

I'd be happier to see us start at 200,000BC and then create a massive setback event that interrupts not only ecologies but humanity around 60-79000BC, possibly even shifts the map a bit... aka, starting with setting us up in 200000BC then working towards creating a more logical and researched based game model from there. We may find more techs, new functions etc... to help extend the game out a bit during that time down the road too.

RE the Renaissance Dating... its all a matter of how you want to look at what the Renaissance was really... You are right on some points but I think for the sake of fractions of time increase we see 1500 as the best shifting point. And that centers on the two figures that really brought what I believe the Renaissance was all about. Other historians may focus on other points as the breakthrough spots.

I'm going to agree with most of the rest of your points... much of them (the points I was making) were hastily thought through.

As for naming the eras according to our pre-existing scheme... maybe we should look at adding some eras to that scheme but I can admit I wasn't really trying to keep to the guidelines of eras I'm somewhat unfamiliar with anymore because I never get to the point of playtesting them before a new version gets released!

 

[Koshling]

I liek the general idea of all this, but I have one major reservation.

That is that right now the prehistoric era plays pretty well, whereas later eras need a lot more work (and the later the era in question the more work it needs). To me that makes a further radical change to prehistoric a lower priority that we would be better doing on a 'second pass' through the entire game after we finish the first pass for all eras.

 

[EldrinFal]

I liek the general idea of all this, but I have one major reservation.

That is that right now the prehistoric era plays pretty well, whereas later eras need a lot more work (and the later the era in question the more work it needs). To me that makes a further radical change to prehistoric a lower priority that we would be better doing on a 'second pass' through the entire game after we finish the first pass for all eras.

In regards to new content, I think you're right. But even the Prehistoric & Ancient Eras needs auditing and balancing, which is all I think this really is. And pretty much I'm trying to get things BACK to what Thunderbrd had originally intended when he worked on the time stuff long ago.

The city growth revision has changed the pace tremendously. I think adjustment to related aspects is required.

 

[Praetyre]

I agree with Koshling, though with the qualification that I think the Space Era should be left on the back burner for now, since it, like Prehistoric, will require a fundamentally different approach to gameplay on a number of levels for authenticity (think Hydro's space screen concept).

The Prehistoric era plays quite well, in my view; the only caveat is that it is attempting to be a simulation of nomadic Stone Age life within the context of a game that was designed to represent sedentary environments. Cultural migration can occur to a limited extent in the form of spreading good and culture buildings, but it's difficult to get anything equivalent, say, to the migration of Siberians into the Americas, or Central Asians into Turkey, or even the Age of Colonization. Animal hunting delivering food and hammers is a good start, but on the flip side, it often feels too easy to simply gobble up swathes of the earth without much more than token opposition. In my test games on the GEM, for example, Korea tends to expand out into the Kamchatka Peninsula and India into Central Asia unchecked, because there's nothing but Neanderthals and wild animals to stop them. I'd like more minor-nation equivalents that I can negotiate, build alliances with or manipulate, equivalents to the Eleutheroi from the Total War series but with individual diplomacy. I'd like to see more minor regional powers than can act as kingmakers in larger conflicts. Think of what roles that, say, Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet could play in a brush up between China and India, or the way the CK/Europa/Victoria/HOI series handles minor nations. I'd also like more in the way of nomadic powers, like Mongolia or the Huns or the Timurids.

Or take a look at Colonization; North America isn't an uninhabited landmass, but is chock full of individual tribes with their own petty squabbles and bitter feuds that you, as the European colonizer, can play with. When I expand up into Siberia, I'd like to see semi-barbarian tribes which can offer me potent resource benefits, exotic animals and arctic warfare promotions galore, but only if I agree to help them beat up the tribes to the west, or give them some resources that a temperate civ like me possesses that they value, or convert them to my cause through missionary work. It'd be Vassal States meets Barbarian Civs.

 

[Hydromancerx]

You just gave me an awesome idea! Subdued Barbarians!!

*goes to make topic*

 

[EldrinFal]

I agree with Koshling, though with the qualification that I think the Space Era should be left on the back burner for now, since it, like Prehistoric, will require a fundamentally different approach to gameplay on a number of levels for authenticity (think Hydro's space screen concept).

The Prehistoric era plays quite well, in my view; the only caveat is that it is attempting to be a simulation of nomadic Stone Age life within the context of a game that was designed to represent sedentary environments. Cultural migration can occur to a limited extent in the form of spreading good and culture buildings, but it's difficult to get anything equivalent, say, to the migration of Siberians into the Americas, or Central Asians into Turkey, or even the Age of Colonization. Animal hunting delivering food and hammers is a good start, but on the flip side, it often feels too easy to simply gobble up swathes of the earth without much more than token opposition. In my test games on the GEM, for example, Korea tends to expand out into the Kamchatka Peninsula and India into Central Asia unchecked, because there's nothing but Neanderthals and wild animals to stop them. I'd like more minor-nation equivalents that I can negotiate, build alliances with or manipulate, equivalents to the Eleutheroi from the Total War series but with individual diplomacy. I'd like to see more minor regional powers than can act as kingmakers in larger conflicts. Think of what roles that, say, Nepal, Bhutan and Tibet could play in a brush up between China and India, or the way the CK/Europa/Victoria/HOI series handles minor nations. I'd also like more in the way of nomadic powers, like Mongolia or the Huns or the Timurids.

Or take a look at Colonization; North America isn't an uninhabited landmass, but is chock full of individual tribes with their own petty squabbles and bitter feuds that you, as the European colonizer, can play with. When I expand up into Siberia, I'd like to see semi-barbarian tribes which can offer me potent resource benefits, exotic animals and arctic warfare promotions galore, but only if I agree to help them beat up the tribes to the west, or give them some resources that a temperate civ like me possesses that they value, or convert them to my cause through missionary work. It'd be Vassal States meets Barbarian Civs.

Those are all interesting ideas, but beyond the scope of what I can bring to the mod and what this thread is about. I would encourage you to post those ideas in the Ideas thread.

I do not intend by any means to stop the other modders from adding new content to newer eras. I'm trying to look at the elements that really haven't gotten a lot of attention amid the plethora of creative additions and, with Thunderbrd's help, bring some balance and uniformity to the statistical aspects of the mod. No aspect of the mod is an island unto itself, so when a bunch of new elements are added, other areas are affected.

As for the Prehistoric Era playing out well, I think some work is still required. I was running a test game last night on autoplay and my empire went BROKE and units went on strike by around -3500 BC because they stockpiled subdued hawks and eagles. If I didn't actively delete those units, my empire would have stayed broke, fallen behind in tech (it was at 0% science), and possibly been wiped out. Although a Player playing normally might not have this issue, the computer nations will.

But that TOO isn't what this thread is about. I'm looking at game speed and time periods for eras etc. That was what my test game was for. To see how long it takes to achieve certain techs and generally monitor the growth of the nation. Unfortunately the massive drop to 0 research broke those results, so I'll be testing more tonight.

 

[Thunderbrd]

So where are we at here then? Do we have a general years to era list put together at this point or should I be going through and doing a real analysis on the matter? Everything I've done up to now has been fairly off the top of the head but I can do a real workup if you like... that's if you haven't done one already.

Then maybe Praetyre and I can expose any disagreements in the hard data of a solid proposal and come to some consensus on some matters there And if you have something already put together Eldrin, lets take a look at what you've got! (by something I mean a basic workup of the stages and year spans on Snail setting.)

 

[EldrinFal]

So where are we at here then? Do we have a general years to era list put together at this point or should I be going through and doing a real analysis on the matter? Everything I've done up to now has been fairly off the top of the head but I can do a real workup if you like... that's if you haven't done one already.

Then maybe Praetyre and I can expose any disagreements in the hard data of a solid proposal and come to some consensus on some matters there And if you have something already put together Eldrin, lets take a look at what you've got! (by something I mean a basic workup of the stages and year spans on Snail setting.)

I have, my friend! I have! It's been slow going though because my game crashes in autoplay every now and again with a non-repeatable crash, so I have to reload. I've also found various other issues I've posted in other threads along the way that are sorta contaminating my results. For example, the massive subdued animals and city spamming brought my research to a halt. A player would not likely have that issue, but the AI will. So I had to stop autoplay here and there to delete units. That doesn't erase the extra cities though that causes nation-wide revolts.

Anyhow, I was able to get to turn 900 in my test game on Snail. This is 0 AD. At that time, my Civ was still using Chiefdom, researching Mathematics, but generally has only 2 Classical Age techs despite entering the Classical ago about 40 turns ago. I believe it was backtracking to research older techs in that time.

Theology is listed at 100 turns away still. But that's only with a Beeline to it. The way things are going, I would suspect turn 150 - 200.

In regards to the era years, I've been researching that today and have come up with the following markers (years represent when the Era ENDS):

• Prehistoric 3000 BC (Cuneiform)
• Ancient 776 BC (First Olympiad)
• Classical 529 AD (Close of the Platonic Academy)
• Medieval 1453 AD (Fall of Constantinople)
• Renaissance 1644 AD (Principles of Philosophy by Rene Descartes published) -this was a tough one
• Industrial 1945 AD (End of WWII)
• Modern 2045 AD (Kurzweil's prediction of when the Technological Singularity will occur)
• Transhuman 2130 AD ("Rendezvous with Rama") -- in another words, Aliens arrive for event discussed by Hydro
• Galactic 3000 AD (Invention of the Alcubierre drive - End of Game) -- "Effective FTL" travel takes humans out of the Milky Way.

Edit: Removed Future era.

 

[Hydromancerx]

*removed*

 

[Snofru1]

[*]Renaissance 1644 AD (Principles of Philosophy by Rene Descartes published) -this was a tough one

I´d prefer here to see as end of Renaissance the 1st steam engine - either the early one by Thomas Newcomen in 1712 or the improved one by James Watt in 1769 - I guess the length of era is also better then...

 

[Praetyre]

Prehistoric 3000 BC (Cuneiform)

Writing is fairly late Ancient though, while the breakthrough techs for Prehistoric are Livestock Domestication/Slavery/Mysticism and especially Sedentary Lifestyle, which would incline me to place it several millenia earlier at the bare minimum.

Ancient 776 BC (First Olympiad)

I'd round that to 750 (both for practical reasons and because there's obvious going to be some variance in every game), but the real thing that stick in my craw here is that Monarchy is one of the first Classical techs. Egypt and Sumeria had it going on since 3000 BC, let alone the Chinese (2500) and various other Semitic kingdoms besides Sumeria (3rd and 2nd millenia BC).

Don't get me wrong, though, I'd have picked anywhere from 1200 (Fall of Troy)-500 BC myself if I was asked to think of "Classical" period history. It's just a bit confusing...

Classical 529 AD (Close of the Platonic Academy)

Again, I'd round this one to 500, but of course the main issue with this era (and with other projects that use the same base) is whether you look at Theology as a 0 or 500 AD thing. I go with the latter, and so otherwise have no issues to raise with this one.

Medieval 1453 AD (Fall of Constantinople)

I'd prefer to either round this one down to 1400 or up to 1500, if at all plausible. Middle of the road dates look awkward pre-industry.

Renaissance 1644 AD (Principles of Philosophy by Rene Descartes published) -this was a tough one

Problem is, the Industrial Revolution is right after this, and that ranges between 1800 and 1850. This is the main issue I'd raise, though I can see why you had trouble placing it.

Industrial 1945 AD (End of WWII)

Seems fair, though again rounding to 1950 fits better (the modern era really begins in the Leave It to Beaver/Cold War fifties, IMHO)

Modern 2045 AD (Kurzweil's prediction of when the Technological Singularity will occur)

Rounded, that'd be close to my own date, but mine was pretty arbitrary. I'm going to pass on this one, since I don't know what you are referring to there.

Transhuman 2130 AD ("Rendezvous with Rama") -- in another words, Aliens arrive for event discussed by Hydro

I've heard of events like this discussed. I do hope this will be optional; I'd rather not have to worry about a War of the Worlds scenario happening in my Industrial era, and velociraptors beating laser-rifle wielding soldiers is already a severe stretch on my own suspension of disbelief.

Galactic ? (Invention of the Alcubierre drive) -- haven't locked a date for this. Was thinking 25th - 26th century.

There isn't an era beyond this (Future only exists so that String Analysis can replace Future Tech), so I don't quite see where you are going with this.

 

[EldrinFal]

I´d prefer here to see as end of Renaissance the 1st steam engine - either the early one by Thomas Newcomen in 1712 or the improved one by James Watt in 1769 - I guess the length of era is also better then...

I checked a lot of web sites to try and find some kind of marker for the end of the Renaissance and the only common thing I saw was 17th century. Those dates you mention are a century late.

 

[EldrinFal]

A few general comments I probably should have mentioned in my previous post in reply to Thunderbrd. Was about to head out to dinner with the wife, so was sort of in a rush...

1) I intend to round dates. The ones I listed were either factual as I found them, or specific to the event I had listed. But for C2C purposes, rounding is fine. It's more of a target than anything since eras actually change by tech and not turns.

2) I haven't yet matched up research with # of turns. And I don't think I'll be able to do a perfect job of that anyway, but I will attempt to realign as best as possible. But manipulating tech costs or requirements and eras doesn't fall into my area of control, so other modders would need to be appealed to do that.

I'd round that to 750 (both for practical reasons and because there's obvious going to be some variance in every game), but the real thing that stick in my craw here is that Monarchy is one of the first Classical techs. Egypt and Sumeria had it going on since 3000 BC, let alone the Chinese (2500) and various other Semitic kingdoms besides Sumeria (3rd and 2nd millenia BC).

I suspect the intent was that Despotism accounts for those. A Monarch can be despotic. In my reworking of the Civics, I'm looking at breaking governments into 2 categories, where the combination provides a better description of what the government really is, and that is further flavored by additional Civics. All that is still on the drawing board though.

Problem is, the Industrial Revolution is right after this, and that ranges between 1800 and 1850. This is the main issue I'd raise, though I can see why you had trouble placing it.

The Renaissance was difficult not only because of a lack of a real ending event, but because it occurred in bursts across certain locales of the world and is really more of a global Golden Age occurring at the tail end of the Middle Ages than its own Historical Period. That being said, it is so significant, I can understand the argument for the Renaissance being its own Era. What SHOULD follow is the Age of Reason and then the Industrial Era after that. But that would require big changes. Maybe once the other modders reach that point in the timeline, it can be considered.

Seems fair, though again rounding to 1950 fits better (the modern era really begins in the Leave It to Beaver/Cold War fifties, IMHO)

I was thinking that the Rise of Democracy heralded in the Modern Age and the Cold War was a result of that as it met with opposing philosophies.

Rounded, that'd be close to my own date, but mine was pretty arbitrary. I'm going to pass on this one, since I don't know what you are referring to there.

There is a lot of info on this one. Here is the first paragraph of the Wiki on it:

Spoiler :

Technological singularity refers to the hypothetical future emergence of greater-than-human intelligence through technological means. Since the capabilities of such an intelligence would be difficult for an unaided human mind to comprehend, the occurrence of a technological singularity is seen as an intellectual event horizon, beyond which the future becomes difficult to understand or predict. Nevertheless, proponents of the singularity typically anticipate such an event to precede an "intelligence explosion", wherein superintelligences design successive generations of increasingly powerful minds. The term was coined by science fiction writer Vernor Vinge, who argues that artificial intelligence, human biological enhancement or brain-computer interfaces could be possible causes of the singularity. The concept is popularized by futurists like Ray Kurzweil and it is expected by proponents to occur sometime in the 21st century, although estimates do vary.

I've heard of events like this discussed. I do hope this will be optional; I'd rather not have to worry about a War of the Worlds scenario happening in my Industrial era, and velociraptors beating laser-rifle wielding soldiers is already a severe stretch on my own suspension of disbelief.

I don't have an answer to that. But I agree that I'd like it to be optional too. My reference is to a book that takes place in that year.

Spoiler :

Rendezvous with Rama is a novel by Arthur C. Clarke first published in 1972. Set in the 22nd century, the story involves a 50-kilometre (31 mi) cylindrical alien starship that enters Earth's solar system. The story is told from the point of view of a group of human explorers, who intercept the ship in an attempt to unlock its mysteries.

This novel won both the Hugo and Nebula awards upon its release, and is widely regarded as one of the cornerstones in Clarke's bibliography. It is considered a science fiction classic, and is particularly seen as a key hard science fiction text.

There isn't an era beyond this (Future only exists so that String Analysis can replace Future Tech), so I don't quite see where you are going with this.

I'm glad you told me that! It had all the settings in the XML so I thought it was!