Enlightenment Era

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Enlightenment Era (1700-1776), a gameplay era that came between Renaissance and Industrial, and it has its own uniqueness that distincts itself from the two, this inlcuded the diversifications of sailship navy, introductions of bayonets and flintlock firearms to the army eventually obsolete pike & shots formations, centralizations of governments. fashions (and maybe more). A very significant era in mankind history, but Firaxis seemed to marginalized this era since the beginning of Civilization series. In all Civ games, The Enlightenment Era is either expressed as wholly Industrial Era (Civ3, 4 and 6) or late Renaissance (Civ 5), even with new concepts of civics that expressed how mankind society and politics progressed throughout history. The Enlightenment is expressed in Civ6 only as a researchable civic came at the very end of Renaissance Era. While in truth, modern political phillosoply or concepts came out from this era, the likes of Voltaire, Locke, JJ Rousseau, Montesquieu, and even E. J. Sieyes (While everyone associated 18th Brumaire Coup with Napoleon Bonaparate, it is Sieyes Idea to get out of constitutional deadlock at the time, the deadlock that did no good to battered France of 1799).

Does the Enlightenment deserves its own status as era?
- If yes, Tech and civic list and tree assocated with this era?
- If no, what are better solutions to represents this era in Civ6?

 

[Sostratus]

There are certain parts of the tech/civics tree that are set up to underline how fundamental certain advances are. Look at ideology, for example. Everything funnels to it and it’s very game defining as it gates your tier 3 government.
I think more techs/civics need this treatment. The enlightenment civic, in particular, unlocks several powerful cards, and is sort of placed as the pinnacle of the Renaissance civics. The only other way to the industrial era civics is mercantilism. The defining effects the period had on humanity could be perhaps better represented, though.

I mean industrialization should be THE gating tech to the entire industrial era. Why they put things like Steel on a completely independent branch is a bit strange (I don’t think there should be branches of the tech tree that are completely independent for more than one era.) And there is a very noticeable difference between having that tech and not having it- factories, power plants, suddenly you get railroads the next tech- it’s very clear to the player.

So the enlightenment could elicit the same type of effect is terms of feel, except applying to how you govern your country and interact with others instead of just chucking more yield into your economy. I don’t think a whole era in civ terms is justified, but they could make it stand out more. I mean even feudalism is a really standout civic because it’s effects are so useful, so just something like that would be enough.

 

[Uberfrog]

There are certain parts of the tech/civics tree that are set up to underline how fundamental certain advances are. Look at ideology, for example. Everything funnels to it and it’s very game defining as it gates your tier 3 government.
I think more techs/civics need this treatment. The enlightenment civic, in particular, unlocks several powerful cards, and is sort of placed as the pinnacle of the Renaissance civics. The only other way to the industrial era civics is mercantilism. The defining effects the period had on humanity could be perhaps better represented, though.

I mean industrialization should be THE gating tech to the entire industrial era. Why they put things like Steel on a completely independent branch is a bit strange (I don’t think there should be branches of the tech tree that are completely independent for more than one era.) And there is a very noticeable difference between having that tech and not having it- factories, power plants, suddenly you get railroads the next tech- it’s very clear to the player.

So the enlightenment could elicit the same type of effect is terms of feel, except applying to how you govern your country and interact with others instead of just chucking more yield into your economy. I don’t think a whole era in civ terms is justified, but they could make it stand out more. I mean even feudalism is a really standout civic because it’s effects are so useful, so just something like that would be enough.

I like this idea. I think in general civ eras should feel like dramatic shifts in the history of the world and the potential of your empire. Instead of being arbitrary milestones of continuous technological and cultural development, they should feel like something has changed in how the game is played. This concept obviously goes beyond the enlightenment, and they could (and should) consider similar shifts to mark all eras. The feudalism civic is a great example of this for the medieval era.

For the enlightenment era, whether or not its a standalone era, it should bring about changes in government and perhaps a gear-shift in science (as the industrial era should for production) to reflect the historical period.

It's perhaps a symptom of the game's American developers that Tier 2 governments transition from medieval feudal monarchies and merchant republics straight into 20th century ideologies. What the Enlightenment should offer are Tier 3 governments where you choose between Absolute Monarchy (think Frederick of Prussia), Constitutional Monarchy (the Hanoverians in Britain) or a Republic (the United States). The Democracy/Facism/Communism clash then becomes Tier 4, and the Gathering Storm Future Governments Tier 5.

On the military side of things, there is more than enough scope for a new era of units. Civ 6's melee unit progression still has a huge fusilier-shaped hole, and an expansion of the naval line would allow galleons to flourish in the renaissance era before we can have Trafalgar-esque battles of frigates and ships-of-the-line.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Yes.
The Ideology-based government systems of the Modern Era should also have 10 slots while The Enlightenment Era ones should. I might consider Military - focused system to be either Absolute Monarchy or Military Junta (Think of Latin America), The Commonwealth being successor to Merchant Republic, and all rounder may be Constitutional Monarchy.
With this.
1. Both merchant republic and theocracy should came about the same time as Monarchy (actually Theocracy should be unlocked with Divine Rights, while Merchant Republc should represents Veneza or Florenza... i.e. unlockable with yet another medieval civic
2. Reformd Church should unlocks reformed beliefs for religion founder (Which came to be regardless whether did the two evangelizations had been done yet?). Also unlocks Grand Temple building (One per civ, upgrades of regular temple.)
3. New civics: The Constitution, Check and Balance system, and Divisions of Labor.
4. New tech: Actually I favor Enlightenment Era, i'd add naval engineering, for example. (Frigates unlocked with this tech, and square rigging unlocks Galleon instead )

 

[ehecatzin]

I wholeheartily agree that the game needs an Enlightenment Era,

The gap between renaissance and industrial is hot mess, not only in government types and civics, but in units, city graphics and overall pacing. because you can funnel right trough industrial, for example you very often end up with ironclads before you even start to upgrade your frigates. and let's face it going from musketman to infrantry just feels, odd. or it being barely no reason (besides extra tourism) to build renaissance walls.

 

[Foxiron]

I think that Civ VI an enlightement era, for two reasons

1. One of the most significant eras in history, as modern science and philosphy as we know it came to life, and innovations in Europe and the rest of the world led to the eventual industrial era
2. It would fill in that painful gap between the Renissance era and Industrial era, with new governments(Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Democracy), new units so I don't get OCD using musketman and bombards when there should clearly been Riflemen and 12 Pounders, and would flesh out the mid-game more.

 

[Sostratus]

2. It would fill in that painful gap between the Renissance era and Industrial era, with new governments(Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Democracy), new units so I don't get OCD using musketman and bombards when there should clearly been Riflemen and 12 Pounders, and would flesh out the mid-game more.

The devs this time around seem to have the industrial era start a little earlier than before; the ranged unit is the "field cannon" and even though there is no rifleman, if it existed it would be in the industrial; the Redcoat is an industrial unit.
It's not easy to draw lines between eras, although I think drawing the line between industrial and pre industrial clearly and in a good spot trumps most of the other era distinctions. In civ5, cannons were renaissance and industrial had artillery + gatling guns, although the renaissance infantry was still muskets.

The gap between renaissance and industrial is hot mess, not only in government types and civics, but in units, city graphics and overall pacing.

I'm very surprised that the tech and civics trees ended up so different in terms of pace. I feel the civic tree is generally pretty well balanced about making you get through your paces and not letting you just blitz the eras like the tech tree does. I mean in vanilla you could skip an entire era by taking the top branch. Why they aren't more interconnected I do not know. The game pacing and lack of unit upgrades (we can debate the correct term for enlightenment infantry but if we had the traditional muskets-rifles-infantry in game now, I think that would go a lot better for people. I mean we have the rifling tech for gosh sakes!!) weighs on the game more than it needs to. A design choice, to be sure, but one that can be changed.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I think that Civ VI an enlightement era, for two reasons

1. One of the most significant eras in history, as modern science and philosphy as we know it came to life, and innovations in Europe and the rest of the world led to the eventual industrial era
2. It would fill in that painful gap between the Renissance era and Industrial era, with new governments(Absolute Monarchy, Parliamentary Democracy), new units so I don't get OCD using musketman and bombards when there should clearly been Riflemen and 12 Pounders, and would flesh out the mid-game more.

Actually
1. As a thread starter I supported the Enlightenment era, but for now if there's a possibility to mod add one era between Renaissance and Industrial? in Civ6 The 'Enlightenment Era' is part of Industrial while the civic is at the ending of Renaissance.
2. Isn't 12 pounders field cannon? actually should be 24 or even 36. If there will be The Enligthenment Era then the Fusiliers (anticav) and Grenadiers (standard melee) will be available)

^ These guns fit better with your aforemented siege cannon thing. Not sure if these are 24 or 36 pounders but i saw these on the Bangkok National Museum (formerly Viceroyalty Palace), clearly Imported from Britain (?), actually these were either naval or fortress guns.
But industrial era siege guns should also be rifled like either Parrots or Whitworths.

 

[acluewithout]

The devs this time around seem to have the industrial era start a little earlier than before; the ranged unit is the "field cannon" and even though there is no rifleman, if it existed it would be in the industrial; the Redcoat is an industrial unit.
It's not easy to draw lines between eras, although I think drawing the line between industrial and pre industrial clearly and in a good spot trumps most of the other era distinctions. In civ5, cannons were renaissance and industrial had artillery + gatling guns, although the renaissance infantry was still muskets.


I'm very surprised that the tech and civics trees ended up so different in terms of pace. I feel the civic tree is generally pretty well balanced about making you get through your paces and not letting you just blitz the eras like the tech tree does. I mean in vanilla you could skip an entire era by taking the top branch. Why they aren't more interconnected I do not know. The game pacing and lack of unit upgrades (we can debate the correct term for enlightenment infantry but if we had the traditional muskets-rifles-infantry in game now, I think that would go a lot better for people. I mean we have the rifling tech for gosh sakes!!) weighs on the game more than it needs to. A design choice, to be sure, but one that can be changed.

I really like the split Civics and Tech Tree, and think both work pretty well.

Some Civics and Techs probably should feel more important though, e.g. Enlightenment and Industrialisation. I don't think just giving these particular Civics or Techs "more" bonuses is really the solution though. They need to stand out more - personally, as I've said a million times already, I'd love to see something like Social Policies sit along side the Civics and Tech Tree, so that you could have something where these more critical innovations could sit. But another solution would be to just have some Civics or Techs get emphasised more explicitly - like, maybe they get a double border on the tree and reward you with Era score + a more significant boost.

I also think a problem with the Civics tree is that, while there are a few leaf techs, basically every Civ ends up researching everything. No one really ends up with a unique culture - everyone gets the Enlightenment, everyone gets Feudalism etc. It makes culture feel a bit generic (whereas that doesn;'t bother me so much with Tech, because everyone really does end up with the same technology eventually). Again, I think something like Social Policies would help there, rather than e.g. just more leaf techs, but I'm sure there are other solutions.

 

[Sostratus]

Some Civics and Techs probably should feel more important though, e.g. Enlightenment and Industrialisation. I don't think just giving these particular Civics or Techs "more" bonuses is really the solution though. They need to stand out more - personally, as I've said a million times already, I'd love to see something like Social Policies sit along side the Civics and Tech Tree, so that you could have something where these more critical innovations could sit. But another solution would be to just have some Civics or Techs get emphasised more explicitly - like, maybe they get a double border on the tree and reward you with Era score + a more significant boost

I think I posted earlier in this thread, just sort of having some of those key tech/civics be "focal points" of the tree where you get funneled to them would be enough. I mean without industrialization you have no industrial era. That one tech alone is game changing.

I also think a problem with the Civics tree is that, while there are a few leaf techs, basically every Civ ends up researching everything. No one really ends up with a unique culture - everyone gets the Enlightenment, everyone gets Feudalism etc. It makes culture feel a bit generic (whereas that doesn;'t bother me so much with Tech, because everyone really does end up with the same technology eventually). Again, I think something like Social Policies would help there, rather than e.g. just more leaf techs, but I'm sure there are other solutions

Perhaps they could extend the dedication system a bit- so at the start of every era you can choose some kind of bonus from a list of a few, themed to the era of course - and this would tie in with what gives you era score - and then at the end of an era, you get a second bonus as a finisher effect. What variation of the finisher you get depends on whether you achieved a dark/normal/golden age. This sort of is in the same spirit as what gov't legacy bonus were trying to do- letting players carry their cultural achievement forward with them. And then, at the same time, you choose the dedication for the next era, and the cycle continues. But over the game you build up this path through the ages where you accumulate accomplishments. For example, maybe you picked Reform the Coinage and during the era that gave you +1 era score per TR completed and a bonus of +2 gold per trade route. And when the era is done, you end up with dark/normal/golden age achievement legacy of say, +1 gold per trade route, +2 gold, or +2 gold and +1 trade route capacity (golden.) Pure spitball but you get the loose concept. That way there's not some new resource or extra tree layered on, it comes with the flow of the game and it isn't static every time. Obviously would add more unique dedications to each era, but one hopefully seeing the potential.

 

[Foxiron]

Actually
1. As a thread starter I supported the Enlightenment era, but for now if there's a possibility to mod add one era between Renaissance and Industrial? in Civ6 The 'Enlightenment Era' is part of Industrial while the civic is at the ending of Renaissance.
2. Isn't 12 pounders field cannon? actually should be 24 or even 36. If there will be The Enligthenment Era then the Fusiliers (anticav) and Grenadiers (standard melee) will be available)View attachment 539585
^ These guns fit better with your aforemented siege cannon thing. Not sure if these are 24 or 36 pounders but i saw these on the Bangkok National Museum (formerly Viceroyalty Palace), clearly Imported from Britain (?), actually these were either naval or fortress guns.
But industrial era siege guns should also be rifled like either Parrots or Whitworths.

Thanks for the clarification, messed up on that one . I've thought about this, and perhaps there should be maybe a more refined civics and tech tree instead of another era? I feel like this argument is more about refining the late renaissance, early industrial civics and techs. De facto there is an enlightenment era at that point, but then some of the civics and techs(like industrialisation)are a little out of place.

 

[acluewithout]

I think I posted earlier in this thread, just sort of having some of those key tech/civics be "focal points" of the tree where you get funneled to them would be enough. I mean without industrialization you have no industrial era. That one tech alone is game changing.

I can see the appeal of that approach, but at the same time I’m not a huge fan of funneling everyone into certain choices, precisely because it does force everyone into the same play loops every game. I don’t really like how everyone has to go through Feudalism and Enlightenment and Ideology. Feels very reductive.

 

[criZp]

I mean industrialization should be THE gating tech to the entire industrial era. Why they put things like Steel on a completely independent branch is a bit strange (I don’t think there should be branches of the tech tree that are completely independent for more than one era.) And there is a very noticeable difference between having that tech and not having it- factories, power plants, suddenly you get railroads the next tech- it’s very clear to the player.

What's funny about industrialization is that you discover steam power after industrialization. I really thought that the industrialization process was a consequence of factories based on exactly that: steam machines. So either I'm an idiot and don't remember basic history correctly, or it's some guy at firaxis.

 

[criZp]

I can see the appeal of that approach, but at the same time I’m not a huge fan of funneling everyone into certain choices, precisely because it does force everyone into the same play loops every game. I don’t really like how everyone has to go through Feudalism and Enlightenment and Ideology. Feels very reductive.

That's quite noticable in the civic tree, I agree, that you have two paths in the middle that are the "main paths", and two paths top/bottom that are the "side paths" for the specially interested so to say. And some civics in the main paths are real bottle necks.

However, I don't mind too much, as I do want a drop of realism in the way the paths are connected. Certain important civics acting as stepping stones for the next batch of civics is find by me.

 

[Sostratus]

What's funny about industrialization is that you discover steam power after industrialization. I really thought that the industrialization process was a consequence of factories based on exactly that: steam machines. So either I'm an idiot and don't remember basic history correctly, or it's some guy at firaxis.

While a lot of stuff happened all at once, if you look at the early parts of the industrial revolution, much of the changes were in machinery/technique and organization (like textile manufacturing efforts) and factories ran on water power etc.
Especially for the british industrialization. I think ingame, steam power represents the more refined engine as it came to be increasing placed onto ships, in factories, locomotives. Some things are out of place, like certainly there shouldn't be coal power plants before electricity, but at the end of the day, that's just game balance. But the industrial revolution in the west from like 1800-1850ish is drastically different from the one that happened once we had mastered steam power and steelmaking and such.
(It's often split into the first and second industrial revolution.)
The huge disconnect between the industrialization/electricity branch and the steel/refining branch of the tech tree is the worst part of the game, to me.

 

[criZp]

I know that they invented some new form of thread spinning machine before it kicked off with steam engines. The steam power tech gives you trains and ironclads, but then they could call it steam transportation or something more specific than just "steam power"

 

[Sostratus]

I know that they invented some new form of thread spinning machine before it kicked off with steam engines. The steam power tech gives you trains and ironclads, but then they could call it steam transportation or something more specific than just "steam power"

I was reading the civilopedia.
We do have mass production as a renaissance tech, which in its description is implied to be the precursor to full scale industrialization. But so is steam power tech’s description. It is quite strange- industrialization as described is almost a civic more than a tech.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The earliest definition of a 'Factory' was simply a building or set of buildings where a bunch of people were doing the same thing. In fact, some of the earliest 'manufacturies' were Gobelin tapestry 'factories' where dozens to hundreds of women all worked at sewing up sections of tapestry, and they even invented 'interchangeable parts production' in that they had bunches of 'standardized elements' (scenes that were backgrounds for the final product - woodlands, parks, streams, villages scenes, etc.).

By the end of the 17th century there were centralized 'factories' where cloth was processed - dyed uniform colors, and teams of men worked at cutting cloth to standardized patterns - like army uniforms. This was almost exclusively in England, the Low Countries, and France. So much so that when Peter started to form the 'regular Russian Army' in the 1690s, his governors, tasked with outfitting the new regiments, sent away to Holland and England for the cloth - there was no way in Russia to get hundreds of yards of cloth all dyed to the same color to cloth a few thousand men in the Same Coat Color: the "technology" simply hadn't been developed there yet.

The application of machinery and mechanical technology to the processes started in the next generation: the Flying Shuttle (1733) dramatically speeded up hand loom operation, halving the labor costs to produce a given amount of cloth. By 1742 the first Textile Mills opened (Birmingham and Northampton, England) but all 'machinery' was worked by hand. It was 1765, another generation later, before James Watt perfected a really efficient steam engine that could be used to drive the machinery. AND it was 1774 before Wilkinson patented his machinery for really accurate boring of steam engine cylinders. At the same time he made it possible to build Watt's engines efficiently, increased the precision of measurement and machine work by a magnitude (to within .01 inch) and made lighter and more accurate cannon possible - ironically, that application was first done in France, not England, by Gribeauval in his Artillery System that Napoleon applied to Europe's politics so effectively.

Watt opened the first steam-powered mill(for flour, not cloth) in 1780, and after that the 'Revolution' took off: rolling mills for sheet metal, new textile and iron-processing machinery, and by 1785 the new textile machinery was steam-powered and a year later the first practical steam-powered boat was launched (n Scotland)

By the way, Waterwheels to power mills or machinery goes back to the Medieval Era and earlier. Waterwheels were applied to flour milling in Classical Era, by the high Middle Ages (1200 CE) water was powering all kinds of grinding mills, sawmills, metal-working machinery like trip hammers, and the early gunpowder mills of the 17th and 18th century were almost all water-powered. Wherever there was a good steady river water was much cheaper than steam engines and so was used in a large percentage if the textile Mills in both England and the USA well into the 19th century (and elsewhere, the first Textile Mills in Russia, in the 1830s in Naro-Fominsk near Moscow, were water-powered)

All of which means that the Enlightenment Era as usually defined is in fact over as Industrial Powered Machinery takes off, but it does coincide (1700 - 1775) with the introduction of the flintlock musket and socket bayonet, mobile field artillery, army organization into Brigades and Divisions, and the penultimate development of the Ship-of-the Line as the premier warship of the world's navies, equipped with cast iron 12 to 42 pounder smoothbore cannon (the ones in the posted photo I believe are 36 pounders, so Main Guns (lower deck) of a 74-gun ship of the line or larger).

The Enlightenment also saw a lot of Basic Scientific Development in Botany, Chemistry, Physics, Electricity (not just B. Franklin!) and, possibly most important, both Guiness Brewery and the first Irish Whisky distillery (Jamieson's) opened in Ireland. I suspect hey fueled the Industrial Revolution as much as Watt's engines did, myself . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ So Boris. Do you favor or against adding (or mod adding) The Enlightenment Era into this game? Remember that (land) warfare (particularly in Eurosphere) were fought quite differently in two eras with the inventions of flintlocks and bayonets. (sorry for shorthened reply, just returned home from Movie Cinema after i've watched 'The Cave' movie)

And who invented the first steamboat? Fulton from the US of A?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ So Boris. Do you favor or against adding (or mod adding) The Enlightenment Era into this game? Remember that (land) warfare (particularly in Eurosphere) were fought quite differently in two eras with the inventions of flintlocks and bayonets. (sorry for shorthened reply, just returned home from Movie Cinema after i've watched 'The Cave' movie)

I confess that I used to be a great believer in the Enlightenment Era. There was a Mod that added that Era to Civ V that I played to Death years ago, but I have changed my opinion - somewhat. I still believe the Enlightenment Era was a real, and really important. development and period in which massive technological, political, and philosophical changes took place, but there is a Massive Problem with it as a universal game mechanic: most of the world never went through it.

Explanation required:
Everybody got the technological changes, but I submit that they were independent of any Enlightenment. The development of flintlocks started in the early 17th century, the development of trunnioned mobile field artillery in the late 15th century, the development of the steam engine in the late 17th century, and as mentioned, the 'factory system' was already in use (primitively) before the Enlightenment started.
The most important part of the Enlightenment was the philosophy of Humanism, which became virtually a new religion, and the concept of the Sovereign People - the idea that the people not only deserved to be listened to by the government and those governing, but that the government was subordinate to the people' desires - or else the people had a sovereign 'right' to Remove the Governors. Cue king's heads falling into baskets and a band playing "The World Turned Upside Down" - and eventually, "Meadowlands March" (I'll let you look up the significance of that one yourself).
Unfortunately for the idea of the Enlightenment as a Standard Progression in the game, most of Asia, South America, Africa, and Middle East, and parts of Eastern Europe, came to these ideas late or not at all: so those parts of the world to this day have more than their share of totalitarian, authoritarian, 'top-down' models of politics and economics - they adopt the 'democracy' or capitalist economics because they have no choice, but dictators, kings, or any other authoritarian can always find excuses to stay in power and thugs to help them stay there. Oliver Cromwell nailed it when someone asked what he would do if 9 out of 10 men turned against his Rule:
"I'll put a sword in the hands of the 10th man."
But in England, he was replaced by Parliamentary Democracy with Parliament firmly in charge over the king within a generation, and Great Britain never went back to authoritarianism or 'divine right' monarchs.
Cromwell's Rule, unfortunately, still applies in much of the world.

The second objection I have to an Enlightenment Era is more general: Eras are all Eurocentric and Artificial and I detest them as a game mechanic, as useful (but grossly Simplistic) as they have proved to be for Civ. The new historical 4x game Humankind seems to be adopting the Era Model wholesale, so I suppose it has now become a historical 4X Meme, but I don't have to agree with it or support it.

Rather than an Era, I'd rather show the Enlightenment as a Civic that allows or prompts you to develop Sovereign Democracies - parliamentary or republican - and possibly the kind of laissez-faire Capitalist economies associated with them (but not 100%, as witness the Socialist Democracies prevalent in most of Europe's enlightened states today, or the semi-socialist New Deal and Great Society policies in the USA). And that Civic or set of Civics should be on a side track so that no one has to go that way but the alternative leads inexorably to an economy that is less efficient at Wealth Production - the scourge of 'top-down' managed economies of all kinds versus Rampant Capitalism, at least until the mass gets sick of being exploited by the capitalists and Cues the Revolution - again. Note that the politics of that revolution can be either 'Right' or 'Left' - Nazi/Fascist to Socialist/Communist - but they are all Authoritarian and Dictatorial in the end.

And who invented the first steamboat? Fulton from the US of A?

Not even close. The steamboat is a good example of the old Engineering Maxim:

"When it's time to railroad, everybody is going to railroad."

So, in the case of applying steam power to boats, it started all the way back in 1704, with a Frenchman (Denis Papin) mounting a primitive steam piston engine on a paddle-powered boat. Totally impractical, because the Newcomen-type steam engines were so grossly inefficient.
The first named known steamboat was the Pyroscaphe, built in 1783 by the Marquis de Jouffrey in France, who even 18 years after Watt's efficient steam engine couldn't get his hands on one, so used a Newcomen clunker of an engine, but his boat made several trips up and down the Saone River before The Revolution forced de Jouffrey to abandon the boat and run for his life.
5 years later, in 1788 John Fitch of Philadelphia built a boat that carried passengers and freight up and down the Delaware River using a Watt engine and paddlewheel power. Simultaneously, William Symington in Scotland developed a paddlewheel steamboat and his second 'prototype' went into service in 1803 as the Charlotte Dundas, the world's first commercially successful steam-powered vessel, carrying passengers and freight back and forth across Scottish canals (Fitch's boat lost money because of too much competition from wagon and coach traffic on good roads paralleling the river)

It was 1807 before Fulton, using a slightly modified version of Symington's Dundas with an improved Watt-type engine, started service with his North River Steamboat on the Hudson River (later the boat was renamed Clermont) - so Fulton, despite American Chauvinism, was about 4th or 5th in line for 'first steamboat'.
More importantly (in Game Terms) in that same year (1807) Robert Steven's Phoenix was the first steamboat to travel on the open (coastal) Ocean (New Jersey to Philadelphia) and in 1819 SS Savannah was the first ship with a steam engine to cross an ocean (Atlantic). Caveat: the Savannah was also full-rigged with sails and used them for most of the way, and was converted back into a simple sailing ship a few years later.

For us Gamers, the important dates are:
1830 - world's first passenger and freight-carrying railroad
1838 - first steamships cross the Atlantic under steam power completely.
1839 - screw propeller-driven steamships, start of practical steam-powered ocean shipping of all kinds
1840 - first explosive shell-firing breechloading cannon: the Paixhans elongated shell effectively made all wooden warships suicidally obsolete.
1841 - Dreyse Needlegun adopted by the Prussian Army - the first practical breechloading rifle in general service
1843 - Both England and the USA launch their first screw-propeller driven steam warships
1854 - Britain, USA and France all simultaneously start building warships protected by wrought-iron 'armor' - the first Ironclads (But note, the Steam Frigate predates them by 10 years, and the first Ironclads are Coastal only)

In other words, in less than 25 years we need to be able to add:
Railroads, Steam Shipping (massive increase in Profitability from sea trade routes), Rifle-armed Infantry and Cavalry, Rifled Artillery, Steam Frigates, and Ironclads.

The military historians talk about the Military Revolution of the 17th century (general adoption of gunpowder weapons in Europe) and the Revolution of 'Maneuver Warfare' in 1936 - 1945, but I put it to you, nothing changed so many aspects of warfare and the economy supporting the armies and navies so fast and so drastically as the application of Industrial Steam Power between 1830 and 1855 CE.

Which, of course, is almost entirely absent from Civ VI!

And, my apologies to All for rambling on at such length: this is NOT supposed to be some kind of Industrial History Forum!