Eras in civilization 7

[vorlon_mi]

My head canon (don't have any evidence) was that starting Civ games in 4000 BCE was a sly nod to Bishop Ussher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher who claimed that the world was created (in the book of Genesis) in 4004 BCE, rather than a specific date when cities were built.

 

[jsciv69]

My head canon (don't have any evidence) was that starting Civ games in 4000 BCE was a sly nod to Bishop Ussher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Ussher who claimed that the world was created (in the book of Genesis) in 4004 BCE, rather than a specific date when cities were built.

4,000 BCE is chosen, more likely, because that's when full civilizations began to arise. Most notably in Mesopotamia. Whis is often called the "Cradle of Civilization". Cities and City-States began much earlier than that. Cities like Jericho, formed around 8,000 BCE are considered among the oldest in World History. Which is why I suggest a starting date that reflects closer to when the 1st cities formed. something more like 6,000-7,000 BCE. 8,000BCE might even be reasonable and more historically accurate.

 

[Praetyre]

As stated in the last thread on this subject, I'd have it:

Era Name	Approximate Historical Scope	Beginning Historical Events	Example Technologies
Neolithic	10,000-3000 BC	End of the Ice Age, Neolithic Revolution	Feline Domestication, Megalith Construction, Priesthood
Ancient	3000 BC-500 AD	Invention of writing, beginning of the Bronze Age	Civil Administration, Mass Weapons Production, Philosophy
Medieval	500-1500 AD	Fall of the Western Roman Empire	Martial Arts, Theocracy, Steelcraft
Early Modern	1500-1825	High Renaissance, Reformation, printing press, gunpowder, Columbus	Joint Stock Corporation, Scientific Method, Constitutionalism
Industrial	1825-1925	Congress of Vienna, rise of Queen Victoria	Assembly Line, Machine Gun, Electricity
???WWI??? (could be merged with Industrial)	1900-1925	Death of Queen Victoria	Flight, Show Business, Psychology
WWII (a longstanding tentative name; other possibilities include Early Contemporary, Urban, and Machine)	1925-1950	Beginning of the Roaring Twenties	Mass Transit, Combined Arms, Early Computing
Atomic	1950-1990	Hiroshima/Nagasaki, end of WWII, foundation of UN/IMF/World Bank/etc., Anglo-Soviet split, death of Stalin	Modern Tourism, Television, Satellites
Information	1990-2050	End of Cold War, invention of the World Wide Web.	Stealth Planes, Blockchain, 3D Printing

Overall, I'd also be in favour of unstacking the tech tree. There are many areas of technology which progress at different rates (AFAIK naval warfare was pretty much the same from the dawn of recorded history to c. 1600, at least in the Northwestern Old World; contrast that with all the changes military structures and equipment went through in the Roman Republic alone), and it strikes me as a (admitedly longstanding tradition of the series) rather weird thing to have the development of, say, techniques in filmmaking dependent on how many Laboratories you've built. It would also afford a lot more flavour; imagine if you could capitalize on trends in your civilization's history to promote its culture; for example, if you'd spend much of the Industrial era settling the frontier, you'd get a big boost to the popularity of the Western genre (I've read about 2/3rds of American films released between 1930 and 1960 (which overlaps with much of Hollywood's Golden Age) were Westerns).

Also, I think we should just bite the bullet on Eurocentrism, especially from 1500 onwards; I'd rather have a fleshed out but somewhat railroaded tech tree than an open ended but barebones one, and I imagine many players, casual and otherwise, would like to have fun with the various trappings of those eras. Indeed, I've long dreamed of a Civ game where each era is practically a game in its own right, with its own mechanics, aesthetics, goals etc., although I'd probably look to mods to achieve that rather than the vanilla game, as it's probably a fairly niche product (although Paradox games do approach it, even if their focus is predominantly military/political rather than including other aspects like culture or (Victoria excepted) economy).

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Okay, here's a question to consider: do we even need eras to begin with? Throughout history, there have really only been two significant paradigm shifts to human society (three if we count the internet). All other divides between time periods mentioned in this thread, are rather arbitrarily set, defined by political decisions and political events that each mattered to a staggeringly small portion of humanity at the time. We can all argue all day about dynasties and metallurgies, battles and religious debates, but between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, almost everyone were low level farmers, practically unaffected by the concerns of their respective local rulers, and whenever they were affected, there was pretty much never anything the peasantry could do about it, so even less reason to have ever bothered.

If we need eras to reflect aesthetic shifts (this was most noticeable in Civ 3), then maybe future installations should pay more attention to fashion history, to art history, to architecture history; make those the era dividers.

 

[jsciv69]

Okay, here's a question to consider: do we even need eras to begin with? Throughout history, there have really only been two significant paradigm shifts to human society (three if we count the internet). All other divides between time periods mentioned in this thread, are rather arbitrarily set, defined by political decisions and political events that each mattered to a staggeringly small portion of humanity at the time. We can all argue all day about dynasties and metallurgies, battles and religious debates, but between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, almost everyone were low level farmers, practically unaffected by the concerns of their respective local rulers, and whenever they were affected, there was pretty much never anything the peasantry could do about it, so even less reason to have ever bothered.

If we need eras to reflect aesthetic shifts (this was most noticeable in Civ 3), then maybe future installations should pay more attention to fashion history, to art history, to architecture history; make those the era dividers.

Perhaps best to divide each period into ages. Ice Age-Stone Age-Bronze Age-Iron Age etc. Even divide each Age. For example Early-Middle-late Stone Age. Have bonuses and boosts to the Civ that reaches each new age period first. For instance The Civ that reaches a new Age period gets a free unit, building, and tech. And maybe all the techs of the finished period are either rewarded free or at greatly reduced turn requirements.

 

[pokiehl]

Have bonuses and boosts to the Civ that reaches each new age period first. For instance The Civ that reaches a new Age period gets a free unit, building, and tech.

This would just make snowballing so much worse. The reward of getting to a new age first is being able to use that age's technology first. Civ 6 also grants era score for doing it, which is an acceptably small bonus.

And maybe all the techs of the finished period are either rewarded free or at greatly reduced turn requirements.

This is already a thing too. In Civ 6, researching techs that are behind the current era is 20% faster, and researching techs that are ahead is 20% slower.

 

[jsciv69]

This would just make snowballing so much worse. The reward of getting to a new age first is being able to use that age's technology first. Civ 6 also grants era score for doing it, which is an acceptably small bonus.

This is already a thing too. In Civ 6, researching techs that are behind the current era is 20% faster, and researching techs that are ahead is 20% slower.

I thought Civ VI was way to limiting in this regard. There should be better rewards for reaching new Ages before the other Civs. Free Units, Free City, Free tech. Free strategic resource. Something more like that.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Perhaps best to divide each period into ages. Ice Age-Stone Age-Bronze Age-Iron Age etc. Even divide each Age. For example Early-Middle-late Stone Age. Have bonuses and boosts to the Civ that reaches each new age period first. For instance The Civ that reaches a new Age period gets a free unit, building, and tech. And maybe all the techs of the finished period are either rewarded free or at greatly reduced turn requirements.

Yeah, no, I honestly disagree with this idea 100%. My original post was essentially about how we ought to radically rethink how we divide history, and what you were suggesting in response very much reinforces the old way of thinking about it. Just to give a more specific example, neither the discovery of bronze working or iron working changed people's lives very much, since only the richest of the rich could actually afford those metals up until, wait for it, the industrial revolution. The time period between the discovery of agriculture and human societies getting mass electrified, really all ought to be bunched up into one age, one name: The Wood Age.

 

[pokiehl]

Just to give a more specific example, neither the discovery of bronze working or iron working changed people's lives very much, since only the richest of the rich could actually afford those metals up until, wait for it, the industrial revolution

Definitely not true.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Well historically "Gunpowder" era would have to start in the late Medieval Era. I guess by civ logic though you don't use any "gunpowder" units until musketmen anyways, so I guess that could work.

'Musketeers' is for modding purpose. in the new game i don't really agree with this name being a unit name, as IRL, musketeers tend not to operate as homogeneous units (at least... not until 1660-1680s with first bayonets came to be).
the actual name is Pike and Shotte.
but if stackings (balanced) is to return, it is still possible to maintain separate Musketeers and Pikemen unit, wti the former is nerfed to be vulnerable to any cavalry charge and thus needs the latter to protect, and combat resolves should calculate as follows

Attacker (any cavalry)​

Defender (a stack of musketeers and pikemen)​

1. Cavalry charges
2. Musketeers fire some shots
3. Cavalry locked into a melee,
4. Pikemen blocked Cavalry attack, taking damage in place of musketeers while also inflicting significant damage to attackers

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Definitely not true.

Really? My understanding was that the common farmer could at most afford a splash of iron on the edge of their otherwise fully wooden plough. Then again, I do not have any sources on this, so I'm curious to see some info that can confidently prove me wrong on this

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

'Musketeers' is for modding purpose. in the new game i don't really agree with this name being a unit name, as IRL, musketeers tend not to operate as homogeneous units (at least... not until 1660-1680s with first bayonets came to be).
the actual name is Pike and Shotte.
but if stackings (balanced) is to return, it is still possible to maintain separate Musketeers and Pikemen unit, wti the former is nerfed to be vulnerable to any cavalry charge and thus needs the latter to protect, and combat resolves should calculate as follows

Attacker (any cavalry)​

Defender (a stack of musketeers and pikemen)​

1. Cavalry charges
2. Musketeers fire some shots
3. Cavalry locked into a melee,
4. Pikemen blocked Cavalry attack, taking damage in place of musketeers while also inflicting significant damage to attackers

I wouldn't mind the idea of limited stacks to return. I even imagined the adoption of "Pike and Shot formation" in this era as the second tier regarding stacking.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Really? My understanding was that the common farmer could at most afford a splash of iron on the edge of their otherwise fully wooden plough. Then again, I do not have any sources on this, so I'm curious to see some info that can confidently prove me wrong on this

Plowshares into More Plowshares: some data:

The simple wooden 'ard' plow and the oxen to haul it date back to about 6000 BCE. This was the very light plow only suitable for light, dry soils such as those around the Mediterranean basin and in the Near East.

By 200 BCE the Han Chinese were using cast iron mould-board plows drawn by oxen. The entire plow was made of iron, except for a wooden frame and handles for the plowman.

Around 60 - 95 CE the Roman writer Pliny describes iron plows with wheels and coulter boards for plowing deep furrows in the heavy soils of northern Europe - specifically, Gaul and Germany. An all-wood version of this plow survived the Roman Empire, being reported in post-Roman Britain after 400 CE.
By the way, Pliny also describes a Gaulic mechanical Harvester "an enormous box with teeth, supported on two wheels" that was used to speed up grain harvesting, but, alas, does not say how much if any of it was iron or wood.

643 CE a heavy iron mould-board plow called the carruca is in use in the Po Valley of Italy - and requiring a team of 8 oxen to draw it, so this was a very heavy iron communal device, shared amongst the peasant farmers of an entire village.

The 'Industrial' plow mentioned was probably the 'Scot's Plow' invented by James Small in 1784 CE, in which the entire plow was cast as a single iron piece and could be drawn by 2 horses operated by 1 man, which hugely increased the productivity of agricultural laborers.

A better measure of agricultural productivity would probably be horsepower per farmer or acre rather than the metallurgy of their tools, and we tend to forget how recent the increase in that measure was. As late as 1900 CE the average American farmer disposed of 2.5 horsepower, up from 1.5 horsepower in 1850 despite all the application by 1900 of steam and internal combustion engines. The really massive increase in farming 'mechanization' didn't take place until the 20th century CE.

 

[pokiehl]

Even beyond farmers having iron tools, iron and bronze quickly revolutionized human warfare. Bronze is essentially the catalyst for the creation of warrior castes, and then iron, much more abundant than bronze, led to the creation of bigger armies and larger scale warfare, all of which had an effect on day-to-day life.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Okay, here's a question to consider: do we even need eras to begin with?

Yes. For CIV the game, yes.

Despite myself want CIV7 to have a significative focus in the people (denizens) and their needs (different parameters that affect how you get civics to personalize your civ), I would not want CIV to change to the point that fundamental aspect of its design as are Eras changed to a few ones based on the life of the common peasant. Again I am saying this as someone that dislike the "great figure" focus of civ and want the average people to be a thing in game.

The multiple, deterministic and western-centric eras of CIV design are the way the game manages and balance the progression of techs, units, buildings, civics, etc. Of course stylistic change is an element that could seem to be superfluous but visual recognition and the narrative value matters for players to enjoy the game.

Question the value of eras in terms of the change in the life of the common people take away the value of multiple fixed eras to balance a game that is not about population management. One more time I say this as someone that want a "Quality of Life" victory about be the civ with the best well-being conditions for your population, BUT still think that this should be only one aspect of the game that should be adapted to the regular design of CIV and not the opposite.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes. For CIV the game, yes.

Despite myself want CIV7 to have a significative focus in the people (denizens) and their needs (different parameters that affect how you get civics to personalize your civ), I would not want CIV to change to the point that fundamental aspect of its design as are Eras changed to a few ones based on the life of the common peasant. Again I am saying this as someone that dislike the "great figure" focus of civ and want the average people to be a thing in game.

The multiple, deterministic and western-centric eras of CIV design are the way the game manages and balance the progression of techs, units, buildings, civics, etc. Of course stylistic change is an element that could seem to be superfluous but visual recognition and the narrative value matters for players to enjoy the game.

Question the value of eras in terms of the change in the life of the common people take away the value of multiple fixed eras to balance a game that is not about population management. One more time I say this as someone that want a "Quality of Life" victory about be the civ with the best well-being conditions for your population, BUT still think that this should be only one aspect of the game that should be adapted to the regular design of CIV and not the opposite.

Yes. For the CIV game, but yes with reservations.

Yes, Eras help to manage the progression of Civs in technology, social and civic and political measures. On the other hand, by tying the years per turn to the Eras, the game has made the Eras a Mandatory Progression for every Civ in the game: if any Civ is not in the same Era as all the others, turn progression becomes impossible to relate to any calendrical measure and Immersion is broken. This is my major objection to the entire Era system: you progress through the Eras regardless of anything else you are doing in the game: you can have a Civ composed entirely of Classical or Medieval technology and sociology, but when the game goes into the Industrial Era, so do you, whether any of your population can even pronounce 'factory' or not.

All the discussion about what to call Eras is distinctly secondary to the Mandatory Nature of the Era progression itself: call it Renaissance, or Early Modern, or Era of Chaotic Creativity, what matters is that my Civ is dragged kicking and screaming into that Era regardless of what else is happening or especially happening to it or any other Civ in that particular game.

This Mandatory Era Progression also presupposes the Western Notion that All Progress or Progression is somehow essentially A Good Thing. The population struggling with the 'progression' from Imperial late Classical Roman lifestyles to Local, Insecure early Medieval conditions might have something to say about that, and the Tang Chinese merchant would want to know what this 'medieval' stuff is that you are talking about: it scarcely applies to him, his family, city or Civ.

I would like very much for any Era system retained in this or any other histerical 4X game to have the Eras apply separately to individual Civs or continents or regions instead of a blanket smothering the entire map regardless of specific conditions. Provide individual 'triggers' or, more likely, sets of triggers to advance into another Era, possibly with some (NOT game-ending) penalties for refusing to move into another Era (yet). An Industrial Era Civ should have some advantages over a Medieval one, not just because its in a more 'advanced' Era, but because to move into an Industrial Era it had to develop Factories and new ways of organizing Capital and Resources so that it is capable of doing things a Medieval Economy and Civ simply cannot do. Just as an example, a Medieval Economy could barely afford to build stone walls around its cities and castles without oppressing all of its people with taxation - and being oppressed by Tax Revolts among its nobility, merchants, and peasantry. It couldn't even dream of amassing the wealth required to build even a few kilometers of railroad, even assuming it could manage the major industrial firms required to build the rails, locomotives, cars, and other equipment and mechanisms required to make the railroad work.

 

[dagriggstar]

We should have an era/age system to break the game out of "how do you generate as much science as possible" as the main winning strategy. Have some other requirements to progress through the game.

Having a "world era" can probably go. Everything the world era does (reset the golden age threshold, dedications) can be done for each faction individually. I agree it is a bit jarring when your individual faction gets way ahead/behind the world era.
Without a "world era", each faction can individualise the names of each era (You could argue this can be done anyway, the name of the era depends on the faction you're playing, the game effects are the same). You play the Jomon period into the Yayoi period or the Georgian era into the Victorian era. You never see terms like "Classical/Medieval" used. The UI just shows other factions as in era 1/2/3/4 etc so you can keep track of how progressed they are.

What each era does specifically can be individualised and chosen with the dedications. I'd still keep the shared pool of dedications to try not to over-complicate things. We might still have an "Industrial" era but you the player choose it with your dedication.

Taking it a step further, we can boost trade/tech/culture between factions in the same "era" at the same time (As in, two neighbours took the same dedication). Would encourage blobs of civs to be in the same era at the same time, much like real life. Generally speaking the game needs more co-operative mechanics anyway.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

We should have an era/age system to break the game out of "how do you generate as much science as possible" as the main winning strategy. Have some other requirements to progress through the game.

Having a "world era" can probably go. Everything the world era does (reset the golden age threshold, dedications) can be done for each faction individually. I agree it is a bit jarring when your individual faction gets way ahead/behind the world era.
Without a "world era", each faction can individualise the names of each era (You could argue this can be done anyway, the name of the era depends on the faction you're playing, the game effects are the same). You play the Jomon period into the Yayoi period or the Georgian era into the Victorian era. You never see terms like "Classical/Medieval" used. The UI just shows other factions as in era 1/2/3/4 etc so you can keep track of how progressed they are.

What each era does specifically can be individualised and chosen with the dedications. I'd still keep the shared pool of dedications to try not to over-complicate things. We might still have an "Industrial" era but you the player choose it with your dedication.

Taking it a step further, we can boost trade/tech/culture between factions in the same "era" at the same time (As in, two neighbours took the same dedication). Would encourage blobs of civs to be in the same era at the same time, much like real life. Generally speaking the game needs more co-operative mechanics anyway.

Oh, I like the idea of giving each civ unique era names a lot! Though I assume coming up with era names for, say, pre-Columbian civs would be quite the bummer; it would be like Age of Legends, Age of Contact and... Age of Betrayal

 

[Marla_Singer]

10,000 BCE/BC would make sense if we were starting the game with towns that evolve into cities. Maybe there can be an option or scenario where that happens. I think 7,000-6,000 BCE/BC was when full cities began to emerge. So a starting point reflecting that would make more historical sense. It could depend on how the year per turn rate is considered.

It depends what we call "full cities". Permanent settlements have existed already in Upper Paleolithic but that's pretty off the point as they remained hunters-gatherers communities. More broadly, many Humans were already semi-Nomadic in Paleolithic, meaning that they altered between either summer/winter or dry/humid seasons settlements (always coming back at the same place). Rather than figuring out when cities started to exist, maybe a more relevant question is when the earliest techs that we want in the game were actually developed.

Carpentry, archery, sewing, leather tanning, precision tools (microliths), mysticism were all invented during Mesolithic (broadly from the last ice age to the beginning of Neolithic). Then in Lower Neolithic came agriculture, animal husbandry, pottery, mining, masonry, meditation, polytheism. All those were invented millenniums before 4,000 BCE. Pottery is particularly important because, beyond the traditional food boost that is usually represented in Civ with granaries, it considerably boosted trade of goods. On the other hand, the wheel (which is usually represented in Civilization as a very early tech to allow building roads) is only a bronze age invention. I firmly believe we don't need roads so early, but instead would need rivers to behave like roads.

So to get back to the point, if we want Civilization to start from hunters-gatherers, the best starting point would be the end of the last ice age, 20,000 years ago, as it's really the relatively brutal climate change which triggered everything. If we want to start out with Neolithic, then that could be 10,000 BCE.

4,000 BCE is used as the starting point since the very first Civ game because that's what is academically considered to be the beginning of History (ending Prehistory). Yet that relies on the fact that this is when writing was invented, and therefore when recorded History began. Writing was first invented for accounting purpose to keep track of already pretty advanced trade systems. Yet Civ games never started at writing, it always started earlier than that. As such, an earlier start would only make better sense and be more faithful to what Civ games are (and I think it would be funnier). Last thing, an earlier start could have turns of 200 years or something, so that doesn't necessarily mean a slower start. That's something that could easily be balanced I think.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Okay, here's a question to consider: do we even need eras to begin with? Throughout history, there have really only been two significant paradigm shifts to human society (three if we count the internet). All other divides between time periods mentioned in this thread, are rather arbitrarily set, defined by political decisions and political events that each mattered to a staggeringly small portion of humanity at the time. We can all argue all day about dynasties and metallurgies, battles and religious debates, but between the agricultural revolution and the industrial revolution, almost everyone were low level farmers, practically unaffected by the concerns of their respective local rulers, and whenever they were affected, there was pretty much never anything the peasantry could do about it, so even less reason to have ever bothered.

If we need eras to reflect aesthetic shifts (this was most noticeable in Civ 3), then maybe future installations should pay more attention to fashion history, to art history, to architecture history; make those the era dividers.

Ironically, hunter-gatherers had a much healthier and more varied diet than early farmers. Therefore, early agriculture was not the major life improvement we intuitively assume. However, agriculture triggered a population boom, as the sedentary lifestyle reduced the number of miscarriages, allowing more pregnancies to come to term. As such, agriculture developed not by spreading techniques to hunter-gatherers so that they become farmers themselves, but by slowly overwhelming hunter-gatherer populations.

More importantly regarding our discussion about eras, agriculture and animal husbandry didn't come in one day. It was a slow domestication process over several millenniums to create new more productive breeds of wheat, corn and rice, and to transform aurochs into cattle, wild boars into pigs, mouflons into sheeps, oryxes into goats. During Neolithic, pottery, masonry and irrigation also increased food output. With a higher food output came the fact that one person could feed several allowing labor division, but that only came slowly.

Bronze age on the other hand lead to a much faster development. It both increased again agriculture output and offered a significant military advantage. However, it required more complex trade networks, requiring to control tin and copper deposits often very distant from one another. All this lead to a big improvement in technologies, inventing the wheel, sailing, code of laws, mathematics and writing. It was undoubtedly a major revolution. The iron age was equally impactful, building a lot more efficient tools and weapons, leading to vastly bigger empires to emerge, triggering itself another technological booming with the development of horseback riding and directly leading to the classical age (science, litterature, philosophy, currency, etc.).

Next big revolution was the age of discovery, triggered by mastering high seas navigation. While before that, established trade routes required goods changing hands several times to cross thousands of kilometers, it was suddenly possible to directly reach any harbour in the world. Beyond the trade advantage it also allowed a direct access to all knowledges and techniques invented anywhere in the world leading to a new technological boost. This is what triggered the agricultural revolution in the 18th century resulting in another demographic booming that will ultimately lead to the industrial revolution. But let's not assume that the industrial revolution will suddenly make the life of the common man better, that will only come with mass consumption by the middle of the 20th century.