Eras in civilization 7

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

How should era systems in Civ7 be?

I'm not sure about beginning and ending dates of eras In Civ5 except that ANCIENT ERA BEGINS AT 4000 BC. but

Era (Civ5)

Back to Civilization V An era is a period of time in Civilization V and its expansions. Civilizations can progress to a new era either by researching all technologies from the current era, or by researching one technology from the next era. In Civilization V: Brave New World, the World Congress...

civilization.fandom.com

Eras​	Years​	Notes​
Ancient	4000 BC - 500 BC
Classical	500 BC - 799AD
Medieval	800 AD - 1400 AD
Renaissance	1400 AD - 1799 AD
Industrial	1800 AD - 1899 AD
Modern	1900 AD - 1949 AD
Atomic	1950 AD - 1990 AD
Future, Information	1991 AD - Present

In Civ6

Era (Civ6)

Back to Civilization VI In Civilization VI, as in previous games in the series, an era is a broad representation of the technological and social level your civilization has currently achieved. In a normal game, you always start in the Ancient Era (in other types of games, you may start later)...

civilization.fandom.com

Eras​	Years​	Notes​
Ancient	4000 BC - 1001 BC
Classical	1000 BC - 499 AD
Medieval	500 AD - 1349 AD	Dispuited Ending date
Renaissance	1350 AD - 1724 AD	Dispuited
Industrial	1725 AD - 18 AD89	Dispuited Beginning Date
Modern	1890 AD - 1944 AD
Atomic	1945 AD - 1994 AD
Information	1995 AD - 2019 AD
Future	2020 AD - 2050 AD	Fictional Endgame. GS Expansion only

Well I don't really understand how Firaxis determine when should era begins and ends, one thing that certain is that 'Age of Enlightenment' is absent, especially with this era is very much dispuited (by name, and global validity since the Enlightenment phenomenon only applies in Western Europe, and merely unrelated to military revolutions of that period,) especially with warfare between 1400-1680 ADs and 1680 - 1850s are significantly difference, especially with the invention of flintlock firearms followed by 'all muskets infantrymen armed with flintlocks and bayonets' being standard infantry (particularly in Europe).
The Difference is that
1. Civ 5 treats the 18th Century as 'Renaissance' era
2. Civ 6 treats the 18th Century as 'Industrial' era
Thus definitions of 'Industrial Era' differs in both installments. Civ5 viewed that phenomenon in 18th Century is 'Renaissance' (though the name is rather incorrect, someone else preferred the term 'early modern' instead, some others use rather 'lame' name 'Gunpowder Era' using proliferations of gunpowder weaponry (especially cannons and musketry), in Civ 6 the definition viewed English Industrial Revolution in the 18th Century as criterion.
After a discussion with @Boris Gudenuf,
1. He doesn't agree with Era concepts.
2. The game begins LATE, with some techs (or so many techs) are way offs. note that First Cities (with walls) are founded before 4000 BC with walls being built few millenia BEFORE the game begins date.
3. Medieval and Early Modern are very much dispuited. particularly with criterion defining 'what is Medieval Europe and what is Early Modern'. In any case the Anglo-French 'Hundread Years War' astrides two eras. some scholars suggested that The Middle Ages ended when Constantinople fell to the Ottomans. Others set the end date at the middle of 16th Century (With Martin Luther nailed his 95 Thesis, reasoning why Roman Catholic Church practices of Indulgence sales is bad (and corrupt outright) )

For now. my ideas regarding to when should era begins and ends...

Ancient Era (Game Begins) should be 10000 BC
Game Ends date should be 2100 AD

There are more in details to duscuss what should F'xis takes, (or era adjustments for Civ6 moddings, I even wanted to re adjust beginning dates of the late half of the game eras with some options
OPTION A (Late Earlymodern)

Eras​	Dates​	Notes​
Early Modern/ Gunpowder	1450 OR 1500 - 1799	Fall of Constantinople OR The Lutheran Reformation Movement, 18th Century is here Units are already available JUST BEFORE This era begins - Bombard - Light Bombard (Either Tiller Cannon or Early Fieldguns) - Arquebusiers OR Pike and Shotte, depending on which systems to use. - Pinnance - Caravel - Great Ship Units to become available this era - Fusilier (Rebranded Line Infantry) - Field Cannon - Siege Cannon/ Howitzer - Dragoon - Cuirassier - Brigantine - Ships of the Line - Frigate - Ranger
Industrial Era	1800 - 1899	Follows Civ 5 Units to become available - Rifleman - Sharpshooter - Rifled Field Cannon - Siege Rifle - Cavalry - Heavy Horse - Coastal Ironclad - Oceanic Ironclad (Pre-Dreadnought) - Protected Cruiser - Rifle Infantry
Modern Era	1900 - 1949	Units available - Infantry (Machinegun relabelled) - Armored Car - Modern Cavalry (Cav that uses magazine carbines) - Artillery - Quick Firing Cannon - Medium Tank - AAA - Observation Airship - Auxiliary Cruiser - Dreadnought -> Battleship - Light Cruiser -> Destroyer - Submarine - Biplane -> Fighter - Biplane Bomber OR Zeppelin Bomber -> Bomber
Atomic Era	1950 - 1979	Units Available - Modern Infantry (AT Crew relabelled with MG graphics added as well, also soldiers wielded early Assault Rifles) - Panzer Grenadier (Firepower class, requires oil, faster movements) - Air Cavalry (Helicopters relabelled) - Main Battle Tank - Mobile Artillery (Also 'light' variants with strong Antitank capabilities) - Mobile AAA - Commando - Observation Plane - Cutter - Heavy Missile Ship - Missile Ship - Aircraft Carrier - Nuclear Submarine - Jet Fighter - Jet Bomber - WMD (Atomic Bombs, Atomic Warheads for Nuclear Subs, Battleships, and Artillery)
Information Era	1980 - Present	Units Available - Mechanized Infantry - MLRS - SAM - Advanced MBT - Recon UAV - Stealth Missile Ship - Arsenal Ship - Stealth Fighter - Stealth Bomber

OPTION B (Early Industrial)

Eras​	Year​	Notes​
Early Modern/ Gunpowder	1350 or 1400 - 1649	Early Modern that lasts through the end of Thirty-Years War (Short) Units Available - Explorer - Arquebusiers OR Pike and Shotte, depending on which systems to use. - Bombard - Field Cannon - Dragoon - Cuirassier - Pinnance - Caravel - Great Ship
Industrial Era	1650 - 1870	Industrial Era that covers the entirety of 'Enlightenment Era' Units Available - Ranger - Fusilier (Rebranded Line Infantry) - Rifled Fieldcannon - Siege Rifles - Cavalry - Heavy Horse - Frigate -> Protected Cruiser - Ships of the Line -> Oceanic Ironclad (Pre Dreadnought) - Coastal Ironclad - Brigantine
Modern Era	1871-1929	Re-adjusted time period. Units Available - Rifle Infantry -> Infantry - Sharpshooter - Quick Firing Cannon - Artillery - Modern Cavalry - Armored Car - Light Tank - Submarine - Auxiliary Cruiser - Light Cruiser - Dreadnought - Biplane - Biplane Bomber/ Zeppelin Bomber - Observation Airship
Atomic Era (Global Era)	1930-1969	Units Available - Modern Infantry (AT Crew relabelled with MG graphics added as well, also soldiers wielded early Assault Rifles) - Panzer Grenadier (Firepower class, requires oil, faster movements) - Air Cavalry (Helicopters relabelled) - Medium Tank - Mobile Artillery (Also 'light' variants with strong Antitank capabilities) - Mobile AAA - Commando - Observation Plane - Battleship - Destroyer - Aircraft Carrier - Nuclear Submarine - Fighter - Bomber - WMD (Atomic Bombs, Atomic Warheads for Nuclear Subs, Battleships, and Artillery)
Information Era (Contemporary Era)	1970-2020	Units Available - Mechanized Infantry - Main Battle Tank - MLRS (Also light variants) - SAM - Recon Drone - Missile Ship - Arsenal Ship - Jet Fighter - Jet Bomber

What's yours??

 

[AffineConstant]

I'd love to see the periods updated with more up to date archaeology
Ancient: Bows and clubs,yes bows are that old I know "slinger" was just to differentiate from bowman as a unit but better can be done hear. First tech, strictly speaking, should probably be herding and farming and fishing, people did one of those before ever building the first settlements, you had a stable food source before you had just about anything else.
Metals: The Bronze and Iron ages were vast stretches of human civilization and history before the "classical" and the rise of empires as we might recognize them, before the idea of nations at all really, but still with the first definite notions of government and territory and such. After all city states that sent out groups of thugs to extort distant villages doesn't quite seem like an empire, but they did have the first laws that were written down/etc. These saw bronze and iron weapons obviously, but the first real idea of policies and etc. It would be neat, and more accurate, to only put the first government policies here, before the world was so empty that early farmers could just wander onto fertile land hunter gatherers had no use for because it was empty, then they might die off entirely because their farming techniques were too primitive. But now, here, you get stability at least as a notion, you get the idea that maybe there should be policies. Clearly different from before, but clearly different from after when "city states" began to form together into "empires" and such out of a notion of shared cultural identity and mutual benefit rather than just the imminent threat of violence.
Classical: The rise of the idea of nationalism, of empires and "us versus them, because they're not us and we aren't them". The first choice of governments, the first use of horses minus chariots (did they breed horses large enough to carry humans? honestly I just thought of this I should look into it). Here we have the republic, the monarchy, the etc.Don't know from beyond here, just wanted to mention that there's an obvious age between ancient and "classical" that it's own distinctiveness.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we are going by real dates the Industrial Era should start around 1760 and encompass units and infrastructure that appeared from then through the 19th century.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

It's fine the way it is.

So maybe some civilization doesn't have an actual "renaissance" during the Renaissance, but you know what? Wouldn't it be fun if you did???

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's fine the way it is.

So maybe some civilization doesn't have an actual "renaissance" during the Renaissance, but you know what? Wouldn't it be fun if you did???

My main problem with the name is the last Renaissance would have ended in the middle of the 17th century, which would still be a 100-year gap between that and the Industrial Revolution.
Which is why I'd rather the era be called Early Modern. "Renaissance" could still be used as like a civic name, just like Enlightenment was used in Civ 6.

 

[pokiehl]

I hear that point but still “Early Modern” is such a banal and boring term. I think “Renaissance” is more evocative and more well known, so I’d be in favor of keeping it.

 

[BuchiTaton]

This is my CIV7 base game regular units by eras and type chart (also have Near Future Eras units but that is DLC material ).

RECON

IRREGULAR

MEELE

RANGE

CAVALRY

SIEGE

LIGHT SHIP

HEAVY SHIP

SUBMARINE

CARRIER

FIGHTER

BOMBER

ANTI-AIR

VIII

1960 to 2020

guerrilla

assault infantry

main-battle tank

anti-tank helicopter

multi-rocket launcher

corvette

crusier

nuclear submarine

fleet carrier

jet fighter

intercontinental bomber

aa missile

VII

1900 to 1960

commando

shock infantry

heavy tank

attack helicopter

selft-propeled gun

destroyer

battleship

hunter submarine

escort carrier

monoplane fighter

strategic bomber

aa gun

VI

1700 to 1900

militia

rifleman

cannon

carabinier

howitzer

brigantine

frigate

V

1500 to 1700

adventurer

musketman

culverin

cuirassier

mortar

xebec

galleon

IV

500 to 1500

levy

pikeman

arbalist

knight

trebuchet

galley

carrack

III

-500 to 500

raider

swordman

bowman

cataphract

onager

lembus

quinquereme

II

-4000 to -500

commoner

axeman

slinger

chariot

ram

triconter

I

-7500 to -4000

scout

clubman

canoe

Note tha my unit and general combat system is minimalistic, the grouping can be generalistic with some liberties but I am for a different mechanic of Armies/Garrison and Navies that gain variety from others aspects included Unique and Special units (own, auxiliars and mercenaries troops).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I hear that point but still “Early Modern” is such a banal and boring term. I think “Renaissance” is more evocative and more well known, so I’d be in favor of keeping it.

This is one of those (many) places where 'evocative and well known' is also totally inaccurate but still useable.

Most of the 'Renaissance' technologies and techniques that supposedly started the Era in fact happened during the Medieval Era, and the early Medieval at that. Things like the spread of classical Greek and Roman techniques to Europe - started in 1100 CE from Toledo, NOT in 1453 from Constantinople. Arabic numerals and thus, advanced arithmetic and algebraic calculations - also around 1100 CE - in fact, one church intellectual was famous just after 1000 CE for 'measuring with Arabic numerals'. The lateen sail - a classical invention. The compass - middle of the Middle Ages, at least in east Asia. Powered machinery, elaborate gear trains, industrial applications of water and wind power - all Medieval, and some elements date back to early Imperial Rome, like water-powered mills, saws, and cloth processing. Heavy Plow - seen by Pliny in Gaul in the first century CE, nothing new to the late Medieval as frequently stated. Multi-field crop rotation - also Classical, and now appears to have been in use in parts of Europe continuously from Imperial Roman to Renaissance times, rather than a late Medieval 'discovery'.

In short, a 'real' Renaissance would be almost as much a fantasy in game as it was IRL. That makes the word 'renaissance' in this context practically meaningless, so we might as well use it.

But it begs the real question of why use Eras to mark time in the game? Every Civ is going to progress at different rates - sometimes very close, sometimes wildly different (as in 'real' history!). That makes the lock-step progress from one Era to the next completely artificial for most of them. It's convenient for the game design, to mark graphic changes and year progression rates, but utterly artificial in terms of the game you are actually playing.

That's while the in-progress 4X Millenia game is intriguing. There you apparently pick your next Era from a wide range of both historical and fantastic choices, each having a different effect on your Civ's progress. There's a whole lot that still has to be seen about the actual nuts and bolts of the process - how much do your previous Era choices restrict your later choices, how pervasive are the effects from each Era, do the effects 'stack' to make your choices more and more predictable, etc., etc. - but it's a fascinating new way of treating the Era question that deserves our attention even if we don't intend to play it because it doesn't model of the effects of the 4-pronged saddle on Gaulic and Roman cavalry . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

From what I have seen about Millennia their alternate Eras are certainly interesting an have in-concept a lot of potential. Also there are other aspect of that game like the army system (minus the mini battle recreation window), the "national spirits" customization, the towns aside cities, and the production/economic chain that I am looking forward. But as far as it seem alternate Eras are mostly the regular/historical era but with some unique elements, I mean there are not jumps or actually mixed elements of different eras as was historicaly with some regions of the world, and this make sense from a gameplay perspective.

This point to the real challenge, how to make a system that allows not fixed "western-centric" historical progression but without being too flexible or random based to the point that it turns chaotic, unpredictable and unbalanced?
Just think about all the variables and scenarios that designers need to think about to justify not only historical technologies under historical circumstances, but to think about the many alt-history conditions and sequences.

NOTE: By the way, I hope Millennia add an early alternative era (in base game first Era have no alternatives) a Megafauna Age were you can domesticate all kind of late Pleistocene megafauna like Mammoths and Giant Sloths.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

For a civ game I think for eras there needs to be some expectation of what a player should be doing during that era. The ancient era is for exploration, classical is for establishing your civ, etc. If it's the 'industrial era' I should need to build industry if I want to win the game, not just look for coal to upgrade units.

Personally I would like a ##00 to 1200 BC exploration / first religious, 1200 to 300 BC establishing / first science and culture, 300 to 400 empire building / first infrastructure eras.

 

[Evie]

That seems to be making the game a lot more linear than it has any need to be, and forcing everyone down the same pathway of game mechanicms even harder I don't think I would be too much of a fan.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Agree.
In fact, (and this is one reason I want to see more details about Millennia's system)r I would like to see the 'Era progression' be a combination of actions on the gamer's part, reactions to Game Events (like having every neighboring Civ invade you all at once) and some randomness (like Natural Disasters). One of the major defects of the current Civ VI system is that, for example, Dark Ages are absurdly easy to avoid unless you want one for some reason. You should not have such control over the Era progression, and your Era Progression for any Civ in any particular game should not necessarily resemble the other Civs in the same game. Just to take an example, a 'Renaissance' or 'Rebirth' should only be an option if the preceding Era was some kind of regression or stagnation compared to what went before: steady upward progress does not require a 're' anything!

That doesn't mean that 'Eras' should throw unwanted obstacles at you. IF you are at a point where Exploration is appropriate (you have oceanic ports, Carvels, and a Terra-type map) then an Era of Exploration should be an option, should give you some 'bonuses' to exploring and colonizing, BUT may also provide you with a problem or two: if you meet another continent full of other Civs in your travels, you may find that Plagues can go both ways, or that their Religion is more attractive to your people than the religion that is providing the bulk of the Legitimacy for your government. You picks your Era and you takes your chances, but the overall effects should be Positive unless you start the Era in trouble . . .

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

That seems to be making the game a lot more linear than it has any need to be, and forcing everyone down the same pathway of game mechanicms even harder I don't think I would be too much of a fan.

I see the game as being very linear now because of the tech tree and how progressing to a new era of technology is always desireable. Eras could be designed as an alternative to process.

I would like to see the 'Era progression' be a combination of actions on the gamer's part, reactions to Game Events (like having every neighboring Civ invade you all at once) and some randomness (like Natural Disasters).

For Civ 7 they need to clean up the distinction between referring to Tech tree eras and Golden/Normal/Dark eras.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Agree.
In fact, (and this is one reason I want to see more details about Millennia's system)r I would like to see the 'Era progression' be a combination of actions on the gamer's part, reactions to Game Events (like having every neighboring Civ invade you all at once) and some randomness (like Natural Disasters). One of the major defects of the current Civ VI system is that, for example, Dark Ages are absurdly easy to avoid unless you want one for some reason. You should not have such control over the Era progression, and your Era Progression for any Civ in any particular game should not necessarily resemble the other Civs in the same game. Just to take an example, a 'Renaissance' or 'Rebirth' should only be an option if the preceding Era was some kind of regression or stagnation compared to what went before: steady upward progress does not require a 're' anything!

That doesn't mean that 'Eras' should throw unwanted obstacles at you. IF you are at a point where Exploration is appropriate (you have oceanic ports, Carvels, and a Terra-type map) then an Era of Exploration should be an option, should give you some 'bonuses' to exploring and colonizing, BUT may also provide you with a problem or two: if you meet another continent full of other Civs in your travels, you may find that Plagues can go both ways, or that their Religion is more attractive to your people than the religion that is providing the bulk of the Legitimacy for your government. You picks your Era and you takes your chances, but the overall effects should be Positive unless you start the Era in trouble . . .

I would like a game like this but I think something with this level of freedom open a huge "can of worms" beyond CIV's model. Some doubts...

- In the case of the "Age of Exploration" CIV solution is to lock oceanic exploration behind a "Renaissance Era" technology>unit (except Norway and Maori) of course it is deterministic but if the spirit is to have a non-deterministic model why we would need to get Caravels?
Now, the mentioned Norse and Polynesians were able to reach America and even if we talk about the efficency of Caravels to travel and move cargo compared to others ships their advantages make sense under two factors, 1- The existence of something of value to travel for and 2- A real world distance range to the objetive that turn feasible the travel for Caravel but not for previous ships. So to justify the need of Caravel for an Age of Exploration the world generation should be calibrate to simulate these two factors on a Caravel preference, if not the Age of Exploration should be the moment you can reach something of value on a strage coast, something that happened also for cultures like Phoenicians and Tamils.

- About the risks from oversea exploration I guess those are circumstantial, right? Because they should be that way in an open system.
This since both Plagues and Religions should have their own systems where each one of these game elements developed in those different continents on their own path and particular characteristics. So if there are more and deadlier diseases in continent X that was the result of their own development in that game not a random event determined by the "Era of Exploration", same for the Religions, the tenets of each religion are the ones that turn them effective as the populations of the new continent interact with them, but not just by the mere Era.

We can complicate a lot of others events like Gunpowder an the use of Guns, since why China first? and if tall european castles are need for their guns why European tall castles in the first place?
Or forget about the need of a "Dark Age" to justify the name Renaissance, despite the supposed "Dark" nature of Medieval Era is an exaggeration, an open system should allows us to completely skip something like Medieval Era in the first place?

So, the callenge here is that a more open system could reach a point where the need of have Eras is pointless if the system is truly free and dynamic.
This game could be interesting for sure, but would need to simulate enviromental, economic, cultural and technological variables in a way the average CIV player would barely recognize anything. Not to forget the dissonat that would be to keep other deterministic elements of CIV franchise like real wonders, units, great people, religions, etc.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

But it begs the real question of why use Eras to mark time in the game? Every Civ is going to progress at different rates - sometimes very close, sometimes wildly different (as in 'real' history!). That makes the lock-step progress from one Era to the next completely artificial for most of them. It's convenient for the game design, to mark graphic changes and year progression rates, but utterly artificial in terms of the game you are actually playing.

So is it more preferable ... for example, to not use 'Eras' but 'Years' and graphical representations of both attires and archetectures to be year-based. like if game year is 1777 and player plays any Europeans or Americans. player units wore skimpy frock coats with fall collars, tricornes and maybe cravats, and building archetecture can be of Baroque designs. if the game progress to 1800 then player units wear coatees with standing collars, Shakoes, and instead of Baroque, archetecture throws back to ones of the Roman Empires (and does it represents the lack of European Baroques used by American magistracy/government buildings but instead using Neoclassics following Roman styles right??)

mmmm. what would 'American Baroque' looks like? will the curtain and crown replaced with Great Seal of the United States or what? or just crown replaced with American Bald Eagle?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I'd love to see the periods updated with more up to date archaeology
Ancient: Bows and clubs,yes bows are that old I know "slinger" was just to differentiate from bowman as a unit but better can be done hear. First tech, strictly speaking, should probably be herding and farming and fishing, people did one of those before ever building the first settlements, you had a stable food source before you had just about anything else.
Metals: The Bronze and Iron ages were vast stretches of human civilization and history before the "classical" and the rise of empires as we might recognize them, before the idea of nations at all really, but still with the first definite notions of government and territory and such. After all city states that sent out groups of thugs to extort distant villages doesn't quite seem like an empire, but they did have the first laws that were written down/etc. These saw bronze and iron weapons obviously, but the first real idea of policies and etc. It would be neat, and more accurate, to only put the first government policies here, before the world was so empty that early farmers could just wander onto fertile land hunter gatherers had no use for because it was empty, then they might die off entirely because their farming techniques were too primitive. But now, here, you get stability at least as a notion, you get the idea that maybe there should be policies. Clearly different from before, but clearly different from after when "city states" began to form together into "empires" and such out of a notion of shared cultural identity and mutual benefit rather than just the imminent threat of violence.
Classical: The rise of the idea of nationalism, of empires and "us versus them, because they're not us and we aren't them". The first choice of governments, the first use of horses minus chariots (did they breed horses large enough to carry humans? honestly I just thought of this I should look into it). Here we have the republic, the monarchy, the etc.Don't know from beyond here, just wanted to mention that there's an obvious age between ancient and "classical" that it's own distinctiveness.

'Us VS Them' is as old as a man learns to create a civilizaiton.
mmm what I don't agree is that... Chiefdom is used even as late as Early Classical Era. I THINK 'THREE Classical Systems' actually shown up about 2000 BC.

 

[dagriggstar]

I'd like a 5 main era breakdown, with a 6th designed as the "end game". I say 5 main eras, the game should end in the Atomic era but if it fails to do so the bonuses in the Information era will ensure it ends quickly.
Ancient - Medieval - Early Modern - Industrial - Atomic - Information
From a gameplay perspective, across the various iterations I've played, ocean going travel comes too late for overseas settlements to make sense. I think this is because so many turns have elapsed that by the time ocean travel is a thing, all good city spots are already taken. So I don't have a classical era for this reason.

I'd like to see era advancement dependent on something that isn't science. Like you need to build a national wonder (AoE4 style) or achieve some target/s or go through a transformative aging up event.
I think all units/buildings that belong to an era should be unlocked straight away upon advancing to that era.
Science is then used for boosting stuff that belongs to that era. For example - you advance to the medieval era, you unlock pikemen straight away, you research "halberds", your pikemen gain +5 combat strength. Another example - you advance to the medieval era, you have unlocked the bank (building), you research "merchant banking", your banks generate +1 gold for every 5 food (Reflecting grain trading from that era).
The expectation is that you don't research everything, doing so would set you back (since others advance eras faster than you). It's more "everyone has the same technology but your faction has adapted it the best". Have like 50 technologies per era.
You can unlock things "ahead" of your era, but this should be rare. If you get a Polynesia start you can go for Celestial Navigation early to cross oceans, but most factions won't go down that route because you can cross oceans once you get to the Early Modern era.

 

[jsciv69]

I'm not sure about beginning and ending dates of eras In Civ5 except that ANCIENT ERA BEGINS AT 4000 BC

The rise of full Civilizations did begin to arise around 4000 BCE/BC. However in the game we start with individual cities. So I think it would be more historically accurate to begin the game at about 7000-6000 BCE/BC. Of course it would be nice if the game slowed down the year per turn increments. And allow multi-tasking in research and City development. That way our Civs are better prepared for the Era's to come.

 

[pokiehl]

Of course it would be nice if the game slowed down the year per turn increments.

The game actually does do this. The years-per-turn value changes over time, increasing as the game goes on. Also, just want to point out the calendar is purely aesthetic and has nothing to do with gameplay.

And allow multi-tasking in research and City development. That way our Civs are better prepared for the Era's to come.

I've seen this idea proposed a lot but I don't understand what it would add to the game besides needless complexity. The costs would be balanced around this multitasking, meaning we'd end up with the same result we have now focusing on one thing at a time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Personally I would like a ##00 to 1200 BC exploration / first religious, 1200 to 300 BC establishing / first science and culture, 300 to 400 empire building / first infrastructure eras.

Any reason why those particular dates? As far as I'm aware many ancient civilizations started establishing technological innovations, cultural/religious institutions, and building infrastructure at the same time.