Forget the Atomic era — the biggest gap in the timeline is 1550-1850

[Ornen]

as much fuss has been made about the timeline ending in 1950, IMO the tech tree reveals an even bigger omission between the Exploration and Modern eras.

• The Exploration tech tree ends with Gunpowder & Urban Planning, as well as one more tech (possibly a repeatable end-of-age tech). Gunpowder in this case unlocks a bombard.
• The Modern age tech tree begins with Academics, Steam Engine and Military Science, and then proceeds to Electricity, Urbanization, Combustion, and Industrialization. this row of techs unlocks landships, machine guns, and modern artillery.

so in the age transition — and 1.5 columns on the tech tree — we have jumped from the start of the gunpowder era to electricity & WW1 era fighting equipment. (machine guns are one thing, but don't get me started on landships.) from the accounts I've seen, it appears Exploration era typically ends before gunpowder units even come into play, leaving 300 years of history to be elided in an age transition and a single row of techs.

it's very strange to me that they're leaving this period out, and I sincerely hope they add to it in future expansions. the early modern period covers revolutions and reformations, which could make for very interesting crisis/inter-age gameplay. additionally there are a number of civs (such as the Ottomans) that don't fit very cleanly into an 'ages' system that leaves out such a key period.

 

[ehecatzin]

I would argue Antiquity into Exploration is larger, but I do see what you mean, I'm thinking it's on purpose. both gaps are big enough to be noticeable but, not large enough to warrant It's own Era really. I think they are leaving themselves some space to add more everything as they include more mechanics to flesh out crisises. as you very clearly point out, Exploration into Modern leaves a very clear reformation shaped hole between them, also similar with Antiquity- exploration, it feels like organized religion comes a bit late as of now, when it should probably be taking shape on late Antiquity.

My hunch is that when religion mechanics get looked at or improved, that's when those eras should get extended to bridge the gap. (thedevs have talked a bit about cold war like mechanics for late game, I imagine they've done similar brain storming for the earlier eras.)

 

[AriochIV]

The Modern Age begins in 1750. Most of the tier 1 Modern units aren't in the tech tree -- you start the Age with them. This includes Eighteenth Century units like the Line Infantry, Field Cannon, Mortar, Cuirassier and Ship of the Line.

 

[Ornen]

I would argue Antiquity into Exploration is larger, but I do see what you mean, I'm thinking it's on purpose. both gaps are big enough to be noticeable but, not large enough to warrant It's own Era really. I think they are leaving themselves some space to add more everything as they include more mechanics to flesh out crisises. as you very clearly point out, Exploration into Modern leaves a very clear reformation shaped hole between them, also similar with Antiquity- exploration, it feels like organized religion comes a bit late as of now, when it should probably be taking shape on late Antiquity.

My hunch is that when religion mechanics get looked at or improved, that's when those eras should get extended to bridge the gap. (thedevs have talked a bit about cold war like mechanics for late game, I imagine they've done similar brain storming for the earlier eras.)

I'm also hoping we get more meat on the bone at the end of Antiquity. bring on the dark ages!!

The Modern Age begins in 1750. Most of the tier 1 Modern units aren't in the tech tree -- you start the Age with them. This includes Eighteenth Century units like the Line Infantry, Field Cannon, Mortar, Cuirassier and Ship of the Line.

View attachment 717255 View attachment 717256 View attachment 717257 View attachment 717258

and then, what, 15 turns later you deploy the landships?

 

[AriochIV]

and then, what, 15 turns later you deploy the landships?

I make no representations or defense of the game's pacing, I'm just pointing out that the Modern Age doesn't begin in 1850.

 

[Ornen]

I make no representations or defense of the game's pacing, I'm just pointing out that the Modern Age doesn't begin in 1850.

Civ 6 typically ends with someone launching a mission to Alpha Centauri in like, 700 AD. the year number in the top right means very little

 

[AriochIV]

Civ 6 typically ends with someone launching a mission to Alpha Centauri in like, 700 AD. the year number in the top right means very little

I have no idea what that comment has to do with what I posted. I just showed you a list of units from the era which you claimed is not in the game. Make of that information what you will.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Notice also that the game lacks Civs from the 16th and 17th centuries - Austria, Capetian France, Netherlands, Ottomans, Aztecs, Iroquois, Kongo, Edo Japan and Joseon are all missing, and several of them straddle the line between Exploration and Modern.

Come to think of it, Shawnee are the only Exploration Civ from that time period.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm also hoping we get more meat on the bone at the end of Antiquity. bring on the dark ages!!

The crisis at the end of antiquity is the dark ages.

and then, what, 15 turns later you deploy the landships?

I don't think so. The game developers loaded yesterday was already on around 75% age completion.

 

[UWHabs]

The problem will really come if the Exploration age ends early, you're probably not going to use bombards in like 50% of your games.

Maybe not quite that bad, since I'm guessing the "intended" path for most people will be to rush out to get that last unit upgrade, and then circle back for the masteries.

 

[MasterPaw]

Didn't they say the between ages were gaps?

 

[uppi]

The problem will really come if the Exploration age ends early, you're probably not going to use bombards in like 50% of your games.

Maybe not quite that bad, since I'm guessing the "intended" path for most people will be to rush out to get that last unit upgrade, and then circle back for the masteries.

I think the intention is that you have choices: Want to conquer a neighbor who built tall walls? Rush bombards! Have no interest in doing that and want to improve your economy instead? Research all the masteries! Have no interest in either? Spam Settlers and missionaries instead of science buildings and research neither!

 

[Heinage]

Basically, I reckon the thinking is something akin to this:

Step 1: Introduce a big new system to fix the problem of players not finishing games: Ages.

Step 2 (vanilla): Sell the idea to players by building a base game with easy to understand periods in time after Antiquity that allow for distinctive gameplay mechanics: Colonisation (Exploration), Industrialisiation/Ideologies (Modern)
a.k.a keep it tight and focused

Step 3 (future expansions): Add depth. Either broaden and change the scope / rename existing Ages Or add a 4th age and tweak the start and finish of existing ages where necessary.
e.g. end up with Antiquity -> Middle Ages -> Age of Discovery -> Modern (up to and beyond Cold War)… or something like that…?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Basically, I reckon the thinking is something akin to this:

Step 1: Introduce a big new system to fix the problem of players not finishing games: Ages.

Step 2 (vanilla): Sell the idea to players by building a base game with easy to understand periods in time after Antiquity that allow for distinctive gameplay mechanics: Colonisation (Exploration), Industrialisiation/Ideologies (Modern)
a.k.a keep it tight and focused

Step 3 (future expansions): Add depth. Either broaden and change the scope / rename existing Ages Or add a 4th age and tweak the start and finish of existing ages where necessary.
e.g. end up with Antiquity -> Middle Ages -> Age of Discovery -> Modern (up to and beyond Cold War)… or something like that…?

I think we've discussed it and there are several points:

1. Real world history years are not important in game design. We have antiquity Khmers, after all.
2. Adding new age between existing ages is very unlikely, because it would require total rework of all ages after it.
3. Medieval age is even more unlikely, because there's no gameplay niche for it. Continuing playing on your home continent would repeat antiquity, while access to distant lands would make it exploration age.

So, if we see 4th age, it will be contemporary.

 

[CivEnthusiast]

They really should also split the antiquity era into the ancient era and classical eras. There was a period in history that suits best for the transition crisis between them which is the Bronze Age Collapse. Right now, as I watched the deity diffculty gameplays, there's an insane 1000 years time skip between the antiquity era and exploration era, as in the most gameplays the antiquity era ends by 1000 BCE - 500 BCE while the exploration era always starts at 400 CE

 

[Evie]

The Bronze Age collapse is before we have documented history in the vast majority of the world, so again ,we'd be stuck with an age where most of the world has to rely on whatever little we can scrounge from archaeology to create civs whose languages, social organizations et al are unknown. It would be an age where pretty much the Eastern Med/Mesopotamia and maybe bits and pieces of still largely mythological China and India are all that's playable.

Having a single Ancient era is pretty much a necessity of our limited information.

 

[Ornen]

The crisis at the end of antiquity is the dark ages.

no reason they cannot expand on it in future expansions. the current transition looks to be 'a few turns of minor issues and then hello! you're a new civ'! I'd want to see A.) a more involved period of tumult, and B.) more of a handle on the transition between ages

I think we've discussed it and there are several points:

1. Real world history years are not important in game design. We have antiquity Khmers, after all.
2. Adding new age between existing ages is very unlikely, because it would require total rework of all ages after it.
3. Medieval age is even more unlikely, because there's no gameplay niche for it. Continuing playing on your home continent would repeat antiquity, while access to distant lands would make it exploration age.

So, if we see 4th age, it will be contemporary.

re point 1: Ed Beach's statement on this is very thoughtful, I certainly would not reduce it to "real world history years don't matter" as pertains to this discussion of eras.

re 2: I don't think it requires a total rework at all of the ages, just a rework of the transitions. in general I'm not really calling for new ages, but an extended transition period where in one case we see barbarian invasions, plagues, famines, and revolts, and in the other case we see revolutions and reformations. in both cases we could see new civs enter the game ahead of the next era — you might see Normans crop up in the dark age and begin running rampant on your coast, or you might have your colonies revolt and form the US or Mexico (with the option to play as them!)

re 3: the gameplay niche of dark ages is maintaining your empire through severe crises and a difficult transition into something new. there are more 'gameplay niches' than just home continent vs distant lands. (as modern age already attests.)

basically what I'm calling for in age transitions is a more involved reset of the board than we've seen so far, along with the opportunity to actual spend a little time in the dark ages & early modern eras.

I don't think we'll see contemporary as a whole new age, I would expect it to be an extension of the modern era just as the two ages I'm talking about are extended transition periods.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

as much fuss has been made about the timeline ending in 1950, IMO the tech tree reveals an even bigger omission between the Exploration and Modern eras.

• The Exploration tech tree ends with Gunpowder & Urban Planning, as well as one more tech (possibly a repeatable end-of-age tech). Gunpowder in this case unlocks a bombard.
• The Modern age tech tree begins with Academics, Steam Engine and Military Science, and then proceeds to Electricity, Urbanization, Combustion, and Industrialization. this row of techs unlocks landships, machine guns, and modern artillery.

so in the age transition — and 1.5 columns on the tech tree — we have jumped from the start of the gunpowder era to electricity & WW1 era fighting equipment. (machine guns are one thing, but don't get me started on landships.) from the accounts I've seen, it appears Exploration era typically ends before gunpowder units even come into play, leaving 300 years of history to be elided in an age transition and a single row of techs.

it's very strange to me that they're leaving this period out, and I sincerely hope they add to it in future expansions. the early modern period covers revolutions and reformations, which could make for very interesting crisis/inter-age gameplay. additionally there are a number of civs (such as the Ottomans) that don't fit very cleanly into an 'ages' system that leaves out such a key period.

Age III begins in 1750 not 1550. are you sure that it begins THAT soon?

 

[Ornen]

Age III begins in 1750 not 1550. are you sure that it begins THAT soon?

age II appears to end around roughly 1550. age III begins in "1750" per the year marker, but very quickly progresses to circa 1900 techs.

 

[Lord Shadow]

I think some of this confusion is related to the fact ages can end early (i.e. before the fixed start of the next age) if the necessary milestones are reached.

It's not uncommon, and I find it rather grating. I've seen an Antiquity Age playthrough end circa 1600 BCE, after which the game leapt to 400 CE for the start of the Exploration Age. And then, on a separate video, I saw the player end that age circa 1200 CE.

It's wonky, but it should be more or less tweakable through the age speed settings and/or patches and mods.