C2C - Transhuman Era

Not right now it doesn't.

This discussion is more along the lines of a Philosophy discussion, an exercise in debate and semantics. :D :mischief:

JosEPh
 
While I think at least half of what I'll mention here would fit better in my planned modmod (which for both RL and C2C reasons I imagine I won't start developing until much, much later in C2C's development), I have recently found it useful to sketch out a "maximal" interpretation and trim if desired from there.

The way I see it, the timeline should go something like this:
Paleolithic Era
Lower Paleolithic
-3,300,000 BC-Earliest known appearance of Australopithecus, the first habitually bipedal hominid.
Middle Paleolithic-200,000 BC-Earliest non-disputed appearance of anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens).
Upper Paleolithic-50,000 BC- Earliest mainstream date for human behavioural modernity, excluding models that see there as being no such sudden step forward. I should note that I presently consider this an ideal starting date for both C2C and my modmod; the previous eras are listed largely just for considerations sake. The very late part of this subera would be where I would place a hypothetical Stonepunk alt-timeline project.

I feel I should note that I didn't include the Mesolithic (which I saw in a similar way to the developments of the early Neolithic, which I discuss below) nor the Epipaleolthic, due to them lacking distinctive characteristics from these eras and overlapping with them (and, in the formers case, starting 10,000 years prior in one region (the Near East) to Europe, though I will grant you could accuse me of hypocrisy on this specific point, on the grounds that I favour a model where the leading historical region determines the date, and indeed place the Near East ahead of Europe throughout what my version of the Ancient Era.)

Neolithic Era (replaces what is now called Ancient-10,000 BC-End of Last Glacial Maximum (Ice Age), development of agriculture and sedentism.

While perhaps this choice of date is too early (if aesthetically and evocatively appealing), I think 6000 BC may be too late. When I envision the Neolithic, I envision the transition from egalitarian hunter-gatherer bands to comparatively stratified tribal chiefdoms. Gameplay wise, I envision it being more or less like what Prehistoric is now, with permanent settlements and a focus shifting (though never entirely) from raw survival to development, be it in the form of technologies or culture.

Eventually, these societies become closer to oligarchic and/or patriarchal townships, first ruled by fathers of the household, then by patriarchs of the families, then finally by priest-kings, who then go on to become the monarchs (and in some cases, divinities) of the future eras. There'd be a similar (and possibly related) transition from stone to copper weaponry during the latter part of this era as well, overlapping with what Empire Earth called the Copper Age (though the Chalcolithic proper may be narrower than that period, despite what EE's choice of name might indicate), as well as a good portion of vanilla Civ's Ancient Era.

So I guess you could say I see this era as a hybrid between the second half or last third of what is now the Prehistoric Era and the entirety of what is now the Ancient Era.

The Ancient Era in C2C (and, to be fair, this is something at least in part inherited from RoM, AND and Civ itself) is very poorly defined, which I suspect is the reason so many here are essentially portraying it as a synonym or near-synonym for the Neolithic; Monarchy and the Ancient Egyptian religion(s) are certainly not near-contemporaries of what historians call "Classical Antiquity".

As such, I propose the creation of a new era or subera (of Classical, though I can see a third option where this era has some new techs with its latter part overlapping with Classical, possibly an expanded Classical), detailed below:

Ancient Era
Early Bronze Age
-3000 BC-Invention of writing (beginning of what survives of recorded history), widespread usage of bronze metallurgy. I personally consider most of non-Minoan Europe to be behind the Ancient Near East at this time, somewhere in the first half of the Neolithic, hence Stonehenge.
Middle Bronze Age-2000 BC-While I cannot find a precise cultural or technological breakthrough delineating this era from its predecessor, I do know that this is the time of Abraham and his descendants, as well as the once-thought-legendary Xia Dynasty in China, and, of course, of Middle Kingdom Egypt. The Ancient Near East would also see the rise of the first Assyrian Empire and the Babylonian civilization, the capital of which would become the largest city in the world towards the middle of this period.
Late Bronze Age-1500 BC-Like its immediate predecessor, a precise event or series of events for the beginning of this period is not something I've found. Nonetheless, this era was certainly not free of interesting times; the Mycenean civilization in Greece, the Olmec in what is now Mexico, the Vedic period in India, the Shang dynasty in China and, of course, part of the New Kingdom in Egypt.
Iron Age-1200 BC-This subera, the final of the Ancient Era, marks not only the widespread development (in the Ancient Near East) of the aforementioned (and game-breaking in both real and game terms) metallurgy, but the Bronze Age Collapse, including and perhaps precipitated at least in part by the fall of Troy. I personally consider this time to be the setting of most Greek myths (that is, the intended date for the stories themselves, not when they were first conceived of or recorded), but that's an aside.

Classical Era
Archaic Period
-800 BC-First, a note is in order. I identify the Classical era with Classical antiquity, not what is presently designated Classical in Civ or C2C. While I doubt such a development will take place anytime soon in C2C, I think this necessitates a very radical shift in the tech tree, one that would greatly expand this era and possibly (as aforementioned) create an entirely new Ancient Era between the renamed Ancient (Neolithic) and the Medieval era.

In any event, I would identify Classical antiquity as beginning with the rise of the Greek polis', the First Olympiad, Homer and the legendary founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus. This is admittedly Eurocentric (as is much of this era itself), but I see this as no more problematic for C2C than having the Ancient Near East define the Ancient Era- effectively, I see the most advanced region of the world as defining the timespan each era should cover.
Classical Period-500 BC-We return from almost 1000 years of a so called "dark age", with a bright rebirth of civilization. This period, among the briefest of premodern suberas, nevertheless contains almost every famous Greek figure under the sun, and is kicked off with the overthrowing of the last Athenian tyrant and, elsewhere, the last of the Roman kings, ushering in an era where the first known governments that history, C2C and its ancestor mods would call republics. Another major event that kicked off this era was the ultimately-thwarted invasion of Greece by the Achaemenid dynasty of Persia, which saw an unexpected alliance between the antagonistic city states/hegemonic empires of Athens and militaristic, monarcho-theocratic-oligarchic Sparta. Naturally, this golden age would be a good place for Sandalpunk, although I can see a good argument for it fitting better around the mid to late 2nd century AD.
Hellenistic Period-300 BC-The death of Macedonian prince turned emperor Megas Alexandros, one of the greatest conquerors has ever seen and the first known European emperor, marked the end of Greece's golden age, and the beginning of this era.
Imperial Age-50 BC-Assassination of Julius Caesar, fall of the Roman Republic.
Late Antiquity-200 AD-Crisis of the Third Century.

Medieval Era
This one is much easier than the previous two, as there are established historiological conventions for its division. Nevertheless, I will identify events that I would see as key to beginning and ending each era.
Early Middle Ages-500 AD-Death of the last true Western Roman Emperor, closure of the Neoplatonic, revived Academy by Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I.
High Middle Ages-1000 AD-Viking proto-settlement of the New World, Norman conquest of Britain. It's worth noting that most "classic" 20th century fantasy is set in this period or one with an equivalent technological level, although the Martinesque intrigue and societal and technological change of the Late Middle Ages may have resulted in somewhat of a shift (see for example, Shrek (especially its sequels) and the Warcraft universe) since the "golden age" of the 1980s for fantasy, one no doubt in part precipitated by general artistic trends towards deconstruction. Note that the tendency to set fantasy in this period has historical precedent; even during the modernistic times that followed the Middle Ages, many saw this period as a golden age of chivalry and Christendom, especially in comparison to the so called "Dark Ages".
Late Middle Ages-1300 AD-This subera is by far the most difficult to pinpoint the beginning and end of; for the former, I would tentatively (and recently, as far as my thinking goes) nominate the Black Death, political centralization, and the widespread usage of cannon- the last item is perhaps the most significant, given the impact it had upon the castle paradigm that had dominated European warfare for almost a thousand years (especially given what I've heard of Late Antiquity). Speaking of popular culture, some of Shakespeare's plays are set in this period, which was a fairly recent memory at the time for his audience (especially when one considers how differently people looked at time and history back then).

Early Modern Era

Leaving aside the issue of when to start and end this era for a moment, I think this name is far more fitting. The Renaissance is not only a specific period in European history that arguably began centuries earlier in Italy than anywhere else, but also did not last for the entirety of this period (even given the most generously early dates for Industrial) and was primarily cultural, artistic and political, rather than technological. The aspects of it that weren't (exploration, "wooden ships and iron men", gunpowder) also extend beyond it, and in the case of gunpowder have less advanced forms in the past, not only in China and Korea, but even in Europe, and in ways that are clearly not outliers (see my notes for the Late Middle Ages above).

Renaissance-1500 AD-Widespread adoption of hand-held gunpowder weaponry, invention of the printing press, the Reformation, the spread of the Renaissance beyond Italy (and its further development within it), the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, creation of liberalism and rise of political centralism (although aspects of the former can be seen in various Christian heresies, especially European ones in general and European ones of the Late Middle Ages in particular, and the latter had begun at the dawn of the Late Middle Ages at the latest), and, of course, the discovery and colonization of the New World. This is where Clockpunk should be.

Age of Sail/Age of Discovery (name tentative)-1600 AD-While both of these ages extend well beyond the period covered by this era, it's the closest name I can think of. This is the part of the Early Modern Era in which the principle and primary issues were exploration, colonization and discovery. Such things were found in other suberas, even those outside of the Early Modern Era, but in no other were they the sole or predominating concern (for Europe, at least), although at the same time one should not downplay the advancements in science that took place in this period (built as they were upon the achievements of both Catholic and Muslim luminaries).
Enlightenment-1700 AD-While the previous era saw many advances in science, this one would see new forms of philosophy take root in Europe. Like these advances, much of the philosophical ideas that would become popular in this period would have their precedent in liberalism and its predecessors, and indeed, in philosophy as far back as its genesis in the pre-Socratics, but like the previous subera, philosophy and the philosophes would become the predominating European concern.

Industrial Era
Early Industrial Period
-1800 AD-Both French Revolutions, the first Age of Revolutions in general, and the Napoleonic Wars would come to define this period, as well as the beginnings of widespread industrialization. The Napoleonic Wars in particular would extend their legacy for a century, well beyond merely this period.
High Industrial Period-1850 AD-Rise of Queen Victoria, including the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations. Rifles become widely used in warfare in both Europe and the Americas. Steampunk would fall here.
Late Industrial Period-1900 AD-The death of Queen Victoria occurs a mere 4 days into the century, bringing both the zenith of European colonialism and the greatest advancements in industrial technology the world has ever seen to a close.
Age of Diesel-1925 AD-The Roaring Twenties, short lived as they were, kick off this era, which is overshadowed by the legacy of the War to End All Wars. This subera, the final of the Industrial Era is, as one might expect, the time of Dieselpunk.

Atomic Era-1950 AD-I would see this era as replacing all but the last 10-20% of the Modern Era we have now. Event wise, the end of the greatest war the world has ever seen, the culmination of the Manhattan Project raising the stakes of warfare to heights undreamt of, the breakup of US-USSR relations creating a new form of cold warfare and the foundation of the United Nations would mark the start of this era. Atompunk would also be here, of course.

Information Era-1990 AD-I debated where to start this, not only because it overlaps with both the Modern Era and Transhuman era as they stand, but because of the core defining element of this era is that of widespread usage of computers, a trend overlapping with the previous era in military terms, the late 1970s onward in business terms, and sometime in the 1990s onwards in domestic terms. Needless to say, the end of the Cold War would also come to define this period, foreshadowing the rise of asymmetrical warfare (though like many developments, this was far from without precedent). Obviously, this would encompass the last 10-20% and first 10-30% of the Transhuman era (though maybe shorter, it has gotten really long lately). Biopunk would fit here, sometime in the mid to late 90s.

Transhuman Era
Singularity Era
-2030 AD-While I am personally skeptical of both the predicted time and claims of singularitarianism/transhumanism, partly because of my historical pessimism and partly because of their attachment to scientistic, physicalist and utilitarian dogmas (among them being that it is in principle possible to creata a material intellect, be it in the form of uploading people's consciousness to computer networks or creating artificial intelligences), this nevertheless seems a decent spot to mark the end of the current era, and will no doubt be an interesting time in many ways. I think this would be a good time for Cyberpunk, though you can probably argue it could be as early as the 80s.
22nd Century-2100 AD-Naturally, as we head deeper into the future things get more speculative. I'm of the opinion that Minority Report is (minus the central, plot necessary technology itself) the most accurate prediction of 2030, the quite underrated I, Robot film the most accurate prediction of 2050 (again, ironically excepting the plot-necessary conceit of material intellects) and Bladerunner that of 2100 (natch). And while we're on the subject of media, I think Mass Effect is right in thinking there will be no moon bases prior to around 2070 or so, and no bases on Mars until around 2100.

In any event, this era will probably be primarily distinguished by increased exploration and colonization of the solar system, although I think it will be many centuries before mankind ever leaves the solar system itself, barring nationalistic or other political factors which I think will be mostly irrelevant by this time.

Space Era-2200 AD-This is my preferred term for what is now called the Galactic Era, given I think it will take a hundred thousand years for humanity to rise to that level. 3000 AD is my present choice of end date, but that is partly motivated by a desire to keep the pace consistent with that established in the previous eras and suberas, though I will grant that a slowing of pace may actually be realistic considering that the distance between planets and stars and the sheer scope and size of civilizations would be many orders of magnitude beyond that of any prior point in human history.

For another fictional barometer, I would choose the Mass Effect series as the technological level for this eras beginning, and either the very underrated game Freelancer or the Orion's Arm collaborative fiction project (which C2C apparently used to draw from) for its end, again (irony and repetition plus deja vu being the order of the future) minus the magical nanotechnology and AI gods.

One last thing I should note, one important not only to the future in general but to the entire timeline of human history both in real life and that of Civ, is the differing rates of advancement in humanity. I think there is going to be a very, very wide gap between technological development and "colonize everything" development, one of many orders of magnitude. It is entirely possible humanity may reach a technological ceiling, not unlike that which some speculate has been present in the Star Wars Legends continuity, where the only thing left to do is colonize and explore (that, and sufficiently large projects that make the Ring and the Death Star look like ants by comparison.).

I also think I should note where I'd place the various religions (though with the caveat that I think the pagan religions (which is to say, all polytheistic religions plus the monotheistic Ngaiism and Tengriism, with the exception of Mahayana Buddhism (sects not yet being implemented in game), Voodoo (which is quasi-polytheistic) and Zoroastrianism (assuming Angra Mainyu is considered a deity in some way, whether or not he is equal to Ahura Mazda).) should be replaced with a Sevo's Faces of God/Civilization V: Gods and Kings/Crusader Kings II-esque mechanic allowing organic construction of pagan religious traditions (and, seperately have Judaism, Christianity, Canaanism, Mesopotamism and Naghualism eventually be founded in a different manner entirely.);

Another reason i've skipped most pagan religinos here is that virtually all of them have antecedents going back many centuries, if not millenia. Now, you can argue some of the religions I've listed here do as well, but their actual formation as movements with continuity have specific historical dates, which most pagan religions don't.
  • Middle Neolithic to beginning of Early Bronze Age-Canaanism and Mesopotamism (you can definitely make an argument these should be subsumed under the system I described earlier, though)
  • Late (possibly very late) Neolithic to Early Middle Ages-Naghualism (See above. I should note I tend to "date" non-European/Ancient Near Eastern religions by where the "founder" was in the tech tree, not the date proper.)
  • Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age to early Iron Age-Judaism (Abraham vs the Kingdom of Israel, basically, though you could make an argument Noah followed a prototypical form of this religion, and a partly Biblical, partly anthropological argument for this being the very first religion.)
  • Late Archaic Period to Early Classical Period-Buddhism
  • Early to middle Classical Period-Zoroastrianism (Leaving aside debates over the dating of Zoroaster, I think a case can be made this religion is a highly unusual development along the "tech tree" of religion in the model for pagan religions proposed above, and thus may fit better there.)
  • Early Imperial Age-Christianity (Even leaving aside questions of historical accuracy (and for that matter, whether you consider Christianity to have begun with Christ or John the Baptist), it simply makes no sense for the Romans and others to have feared and persecuted a religion that wasn't even founded yet.)
  • Early Medieval Era? to Age of Sail?-Voodoo (Going back any further puts it firmly into pagan syncretist territory, and its very arguable even leaving that aside. As mentioned, I tend to, as far as non-European/Ancient Near Eastern religions are concerned, take it at the tech level the "founder" was at rather than the date, but Voodoo is arguably a special case given it is basically a syncretist religion based on Western African animism (which gets even more complicated when you consider that West Africa didn't even have humans in it until around 2000 BC, and the people who colonized it may have been anywhere from Middle Paleolithic to Middle Bronze Age in tech (though Africa invented iron without bronze, though it may have been influenced by other parts of the world) mixed with (Age of Sail era) Roman Catholicism.

    I can see a much stronger argument for putting this under another system than for Zoroastrianism, and somewhat stronger than the one for Canaanism and Mesopotamism.)
 
Last edited:
While I think at least half of what I'll mention here would fit better in my planned modmod (which for both RL and C2C reasons I imagine I won't start developing until much, much later in C2C's development), I have recently found it useful to sketch out a "maximal" interpretation and trim if desired from there.

Overall, a good overview of world history. That delineation (of a compressed version of it) would be much better than the current era structure, which for the most part we inherited from the original BtS.

The future, though, is really what most needs to be fleshed out. Trying to predict the date of planetary colonization is tricky. Based on the studies I've read from NASA, the National Space Society, and other sources, I think that we have the technical capabilities to establish a lunar base (albeit one still dependent on resupply from Earth) in the 2030s, a manned mission to Mars in the 2030s, and self-sustaining colonies on Mars around midcentury. But these projects would be high risk, hugely expensive, and do not have any obvious immediate financial return, so the only way they could realistically happen is with major government support. In other words, predicting the unfolding of near term space development is really more a matter of politics than technology.

By contrast, I don't foresee a technological singularity or true transhumanism (I still don't know exactly what that means) before 2200, if ever. When my installation of C2C fails to load because I used Notepad++ to edit python files, and Notepad++ introduced spaces instead of tabs, and it takes me over an hour to figure out what went wrong, that's a reality check on where we are with regard to the singularity.

Anyway, if the Modern Era really begins around 1920, some techs currently classified as Industrial will be moved to Modern. So, we could argue for taking Modern techs from around 1920 to 1990 and calling them the Atomic Era, and the rest of the Modern Era plus a few columns of the existing Transhuman Era would become the Information Era (I'd ditch the term "Modern" unless we are talking about the 15-16th centuries).

Then comes the Nanotech Era (yes, I've played SimEarth), which goes through X107 in the tech tree. X108-123 would be the new Transhuman Era (or Planetary Era, or Interplanetary Era, or Solar Era), followed by the Galactic Era (which I plan to expand greatly). Maybe even a separate Cosmic Era at the tail end of the tree.
 
When my installation of C2C fails to load because I used Notepad++ to edit python files, and Notepad++ introduced spaces instead of tabs, and it takes me over an hour to figure out what went wrong, that's a reality check on where we are with regard to the singularity.

As an aside you can edit Notepad++, to do what you want it to. ;)

Spaces, Tabs - even how may spaces the tab should be. Check the help options for Notepad++.

I use it all the time when editing C2C files. ;)
 
After getting a consensus for each Era start and stop date ranges I noticed some oddities as I went thru the Eras. The oddities were that Eternity has 2 extra Eras (12 total) and Both Epic and Normal only have 9 instead of the 10 listed in the CIV4EraInfos.xml.

Eternity has 4905 turns allocated into these last 2 "phantom" Eras. So in reality Eternity only has 9,000 usable turns. The same as Eon which has the proper 10 Eras (as does Snail and Marathon).

But because No one has ever played a game past the Future Era on Eternity these 2 extras have caused no known problem. But I bet they would as they are not noted in the EraInfos.xml and as such probably not in the associated Schema file either. I Will be eliminating these 2 extra Era from Eternity.

I will also be setting the iMonthIncremet x # of turns to meet the range dates we discussed And to better match the Number of Tech in each Era. So far this has reduced Eternity by another ~1000 turns to 7,830 turns. Which if need be I can pad/add back into at the Future Era.

Epic and Normal do not have Future Era. They stop at the end of Galactic. These 2 are easy fixes.

Eon, Snail, and Marathon will also have some changes in # of Total turns, with Eon losing ~2000 turns. While Snail and Marathon much much less change in # of turns. Just some reapportioning of turns in certain eras that have More techs vs era with lesser # of tech. A 100 Tech era will play longer than a 44 Tech era, with the 3 lowest count eras generally losing turns to the higher Tech eras.

But along with fixing the 2 extra eras in Eternity I will also be introducing a change to the iGoldModifier for each GS to reduce the overall Gold excess. Plus I will be reducing the time for each GS before the iInflationOffset kicks in. Currently Eternity does not have inflation start until 900 turns has passed. And inflation for Eternity is only 3%. (While Normal is 27%, which will be lowered to the original 18% it had years ago. It scales in each GS till Eternity has only 3 %.) This 900 turn offset will be reduced by ~450 turns. Each succeeding GS will scale till Normal is reached. Normal at its current offset is 200 turns (well into the Classical Era).

These changes will be introduced in several SVN commits. As some of the changes are still a WIP.

JosEPh
 
Spaces, Tabs - even how may spaces the tab should be. Check the help options for Notepad++.

Thanks a lot; I had no idea. Would have saved me a lot of grief. But I'm still not convinced that the singularity is coming anytime soon.
 
But because No one has ever played a game past the Future Era on Eternity these 2 extras have caused no known problem. But I bet they would as they are not noted in the EraInfos.xml and as such probably not in the associated Schema file either. I Will be eliminating these 2 extra Era from Eternity.

Does this mean that the GameTurnInfos tag is tied to the eras? And if so, does that mean that if I try to add another era, it will foul up game speeds? I'll do some experimenting with that.
 
After getting a consensus for each Era start and stop date ranges I noticed some oddities as I went thru the Eras. The oddities were that Eternity has 2 extra Eras (12 total) and Both Epic and Normal only have 9 instead of the 10 listed in the CIV4EraInfos.xml.

Those are not eras.

As i said before the increments in the GameTurnInfos have nothing to do with eras.
I you have xml like this
Code:
<GameTurnInfo>
	<iMonthIncrement>480</iMonthIncrement>
	<iTurnsPerIncrement>500</iTurnsPerIncrement>
</GameTurnInfo>

It only says increment the date by 480 months for 500 turns and then switch to the next GameTurnInfo and so on. If it runs out of GameTurnInfos it just continues using the last one in the list. There is no link to eras.
 
It only says increment the date by 480 months for 500 turns and then switch to the next GameTurnInfo and so on. If it runs out of GameTurnInfos it just continues using the last one in the list. There is no link to eras.

My experimentation confirms this. I tried both extremes. In one case, there are a bunch of single-tech eras and only one game speed. In the other extreme, there were the 10 eras and dozens of GameTurnInfo tags with a single turn each. In both cases, it ran fine.
 
The future, though, is really what most needs to be fleshed out. Trying to predict the date of planetary colonization is tricky. Based on the studies I've read from NASA, the National Space Society, and other sources, I think that we have the technical capabilities to establish a lunar base (albeit one still dependent on resupply from Earth) in the 2030s, a manned mission to Mars in the 2030s, and self-sustaining colonies on Mars around midcentury. But these projects would be high risk, hugely expensive, and do not have any obvious immediate financial return, so the only way they could realistically happen is with major government support. In other words, predicting the unfolding of near term space development is really more a matter of politics than technology.

While I don't doubt that politics would play a larger role than technology in it, I'd doubt the sources you're reading aren't themselves influenced by ideology and desire for funding. Part of the reason for my skepticism of "the final frontier" happening any time soon is that I wouldn't be surprised to hear something at least approaching a consensus among the sources you mention or their predecessors that the 2000s would give us what they are now predicting in the 2030s. Just look at fusion power, for a more Earthbound example.

By contrast, I don't foresee a technological singularity or true transhumanism (I still don't know exactly what that means) before 2200, if ever. When my installation of C2C fails to load because I used Notepad++ to edit python files, and Notepad++ introduced spaces instead of tabs, and it takes me over an hour to figure out what went wrong, that's a reality check on where we are with regard to the singularity.

I'm not convinced we'll see it by 2030 either, but it does make a convenient end point for the current subera, one which would see its length matching that of its predecessor. Granted, its grandfather is a lot shorter (if more eventful geopolitically speaking and at least approaching its eventfulness technologically speaking), and in the plan I had above its successor and grandson last a lot longer, even leaving aside the Space/Galactic era.

Anyway, if the Modern Era really begins around 1920, some techs currently classified as Industrial will be moved to Modern. So, we could argue for taking Modern techs from around 1920 to 1990 and calling them the Atomic Era, and the rest of the Modern Era plus a few columns of the existing Transhuman Era would become the Information Era (I'd ditch the term "Modern" unless we are talking about the 15-16th centuries).

If you're going to merge 20th century eras, I'd suggest merging Atomic with Information; I very much see there as being considerable continuity between the Late Industrial era (i.e. the WWI period) in a cultural, political and even (to a lesser extent) technological sense, and I see WWII as A: Essentially being World War- Part II and as constituting a tremendous break on those and other fronts with the time before it. Whereas many of the things that presently define the Information Era (both in my plan and in real life) have antecedents in what my plan calls the Atomic Era: post-colonial geopolitical conflict, asymmetrical warfare, rise of technology and postwar futurism, globalization etc. Military technology is quite similar as well; helicopters and mechanized infantry can be seen in widespread usage during the Korean War, and even some nations today use 1950s era military tech (granted, these tend to be nations behind in a number of ways, but that doesn't mean the tech isn't still quite potent in the right hands).

Then comes the Nanotech Era (yes, I've played SimEarth), which goes through X107 in the tech tree. X108-123 would be the new Transhuman Era (or Planetary Era, or Interplanetary Era, or Solar Era), followed by the Galactic Era (which I plan to expand greatly). Maybe even a separate Cosmic Era at the tail end of the tree.

If you're going to go down that route, I'd suggest there should be a Stellar era between the Solar and Galactic. While it may see counterintuitive, I would see Solar as Type I on the Kardashev scale, Stellar as Type II and Galactic as (obviously) Type III. Each level is 10,000,000,000 times greater than the last in terms of how much power humanity; to say that's a big difference would be the understatement of the next thousand millenia.
 
Regarding slavery abolishment dates, that is an American-centric view.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, the dates that the British Empire prohibited the taking of slaves or freed all slaves throughout the empire cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered "American-centric".

For another fictional barometer, I would choose the Mass Effect series as the technological level for this eras beginning, and either the very underrated game Freelancer...

I thought that Freelancer was a great game, but the implied setting was sometime about the 32nd Century or so, even the tech level itself was only really "generic sci-fi" level.
 
I thought that Freelancer was a great game, but the implied setting was sometime about the 32nd Century or so, even the tech level itself was only really "generic sci-fi" level.

My plan has the tech tree ending around 3000 AD, though I will grant that Freelancer's setting does have the technological disadvantage of having to rebuild their society from 23rd century sleeper ships which probably at most number in the mid tens of thousands in carrying capacity.
 
Yes. They went from our single solar system to colonising an entire nebula in a 'mere' 800 years. :)
 
To be fair, while the planets are certainly far too built up for that to be realistic (leaving aside the exceptionally bad "Manhattan (implied to be the most populated planet in the Sirius Sector, and outright stated to be an ecumenopolis) has a few hundred million people on it"), the number of systems colonized is not. Each of the Houses has only about 6-8 systems in it, and not even all of those are populated. Even in the systems that have more than one planet settled (which are few and far between), I can't think of a single example where the second planet didn't amount to a series of frontier outposts.

In any event, one reason I have things stop around the time humanity reaches Type II is that for all intents and purposes (leaving aside numerous other issues) gameplay at Type III would be identical. What is the practical (non-cosmetic) difference between running a few dozen star systems and running a few dozen galactic regions?
 
Presumably the same difference as between playing on Large and playing on Gigantic (but some folks are into that sort of thing, it seems).
 
Those are not eras.

As i said before the increments in the GameTurnInfos have nothing to do with eras.
I you have xml like this
Code:
<GameTurnInfo>
	<iMonthIncrement>480</iMonthIncrement>
	<iTurnsPerIncrement>500</iTurnsPerIncrement>
</GameTurnInfo>

It only says increment the date by 480 months for 500 turns and then switch to the next GameTurnInfo and so on. If it runs out of GameTurnInfos it just continues using the last one in the list. There is no link to eras.

They used to be Era defines when these extra and/or longer GS were made for Civ IV.

When did they get disassociated with being the turns for an Era? Every thing I've read from this link http://civ4.wikidot.com/xml:civ4gamespeedinfo says they are used for defining Eras in a particular GS. Which disagrees with your statement.
As i said before the increments in the GameTurnInfos have nothing to do with eras.


When ls612 adjusted eras 3+ years ago they represented the # of turns For an Era in relationship to the ending Tech of that Era, ie the # of Tech that represents the Era and the matching Research Rate for that GS which governs all increments in that GS.

And Yes I understand that the Increments say 480 months will pass on the date/turn for 500 turns. But that also corresponds to the Era it is used in and in this example Preh Era in the GS Eternity.

Now the tricky/hard part is getting the Research of Tech to Match this particular Increment so that when you are nearing the end of that 500 turn increment you are also researching the last tech in the Preh Era to get Sed Life to enter into the Next Era/Increment Set. Rinse and repeat for each Set of Increment Sets.

The Techs when researched Do change the Era, I also understand this. But these Increments Needs to match the time/turns taken to get to the Tech that opens up the Next Era. They should work hand in hand. If they do not then you have, for example in GS Eternity, Sed Life and the Beginning of the Ancient Era being researched at 20,000BC. Reason for this, the person who set the Set of Increments did not try to match research rate. And in C2C's case the increased Number of Techs per Era was not factored in to better Match the Increment Set (which needed it's increments adjusted accordingly in direct relation to the iResearchModifier for how many turns it takes to research a Tech in an era).

And If you, Alberts2, knew all this then why didn't You explain it better in detail?

JosEPh
 
They used to be Era defines when these extra and/or longer GS were made for Civ IV.

When did they get disassociated with being the turns for an Era? Every thing I've read from this link http://civ4.wikidot.com/xml:civ4gamespeedinfo says they are used for defining Eras in a particular GS. Which disagrees with your statement.


When ls612 adjusted eras 3+ years ago they represented the # of turns For an Era in relationship to the ending Tech of that Era, ie the # of Tech that represents the Era and the matching Research Rate for that GS which governs all increments in that GS.

And Yes I understand that the Increments say 480 months will pass on the date/turn for 500 turns. But that also corresponds to the Era it is used in and in this example Preh Era in the GS Eternity.

Now the tricky/hard part is getting the Research of Tech to Match this particular Increment so that when you are nearing the end of that 500 turn increment you are also researching the last tech in the Preh Era to get Sed Life to enter into the Next Era/Increment Set. Rinse and repeat for each Set of Increment Sets.

The Techs when researched Do change the Era, I also understand this. But these Increments Needs to match the time/turns taken to get to the Tech that opens up the Next Era. They should work hand in hand. If they do not then you have, for example in GS Eternity, Sed Life and the Beginning of the Ancient Era being researched at 20,000BC. Reason for this, the person who set the Set of Increments did not try to match research rate. And in C2C's case the increased Number of Techs per Era was not factored in to better Match the Increment Set (which needed it's increments adjusted accordingly in direct relation to the iResearchModifier for how many turns it takes to research a Tech in an era).

And If you, Alberts2, knew all this then why didn't You explain it better in detail?

JosEPh

I can't find anything about eras in that wiki link.

For me that whole date system as it is done in Civ4 and Civ5 is impossible to balance especially in a big mod like C2C. The dates will never match and Players will forever complain about that.


Nothing really changed about it since Civ4 was released so everything that i could explain about it should already be known here in the forum. I'am definitely not the smartest modder around here so how should i know more about it as all the others do:confused:?
 
I can't find anything about eras in that wiki link.

For me that whole date system as it is done in Civ4 and Civ5 is impossible to balance especially in a big mod like C2C. The dates will never match and Players will forever complain about that.


Nothing really changed about it since Civ4 was released so everything that i could explain about it should already be known here in the forum. I'am definitely not the smartest modder around here so how should i know more about it as all the others do:confused:?

Because you have access to and knowledge of the DLL and AI coding. I'm like a body shop repair man and work on the appearance of the "vehicle". While you are a trained mechanic who knows the how and why of the "vehicle's' performance and workings. So yeah you are one of the Smarter Modders around here.

Of course the Dates will never match a single date. That was proven long ago in the beginning of Rise of Mankind. But a date "range" can be adjusted for.

That wiki link should give a link to the Thread that started the CiV IV process of modders extending current CiV IV GS at that time and the introducing of New Eras and GS. In my hurry to post I grabbed it straight from the GameSpeed xml because it would've taken me longer to find the path to that particular thread I am referencing. Here is that thread and it's author King Jason: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=134109 . It's a starting point to gather info that I have been gathering.

EDIT: And why is everyone against my trying to make the GS for C2C better? Are you all afraid I might break an egg or 2 before I finish or give up? It's really easy to Revert. And how is this any different than any other Project this Mod has went through. I'm rather saddened by all the nay sayers that want to dissuade me from it. Cause it's Not a Major Mod changing Project but it is a make over of a facet of this Mod that has been neglected for a long time. Knee jerk reaction from a :old: frustrated Player turned Modder with little actual hands on Mod manipulation, and whom other modders have little faith in because of being a long time critic and short term modder. As this attitude towards me and my endeavors in general has been prevalent since I was allowed onto the Team. Now everyone get to play Critic to me. :p
JosEPh
 
1) I believe Alberts was simply trying to say that there is not a direct correlation and it's difficult to imagine that we'll be able to get GS increments to match eras to the point of 'why bother'. I slightly disagree in that eras should at least be a guide of where to shift the incremental time lengths - it sets up our 'intended' # of turns for a given era and gives a player a curve to beat. That said, in all technicality, with what Alberts was trying to say he was right in that there's no direct correlation nor need to attempt to establish one necessarily.

2) I don't think anyone has said anything to dissuade you from your project Joe. Not that I've read into any comments made anyhow.
 
Top Bottom