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

[Taefin]

I’ll definitely be changing data files to make my antiquity era years span into CE.

I wonder how fast early age research will feel, with adjacencies lost. Maybe it will take longer to get to the first key unit upgrade techs, or that you’d end up RPing some steampunk scenario if you rush them at the expense of age-relevant economy.

I think the balance between rushing the new age with units to have a napoleonic war, developing a strong economy, or rushing mid-era tech will be interesting, leading to games that emphasize different parts of the age, rather than fully experiencing each in every game (unless playing with slower game speeds/mods).

 

[CivLuvah]

I’m confused. I assumed that the Exploration Age covers 500 AD to 1750 AD and the Modern Age 1750 AD to 1945, assuming we get an Atomic age thing in future development?
If they’re trying to cover a lot of ground within the three eras then they’re not doing a good job of it.

 

[Ornen]

I’m confused. I assumed that the Exploration Age covers 500 AD to 1750 AD and the Modern Age 1750 AD to 1945, assuming we get an Atomic age thing in future development?
If they’re trying to cover a lot of ground within the three eras then they’re not doing a good job of it.

the ages end when they end, independent of turn or the game's stated date (which is way off in Civ 6 anyway).

the exploration tech tree ends with gunpowder, though pre-release reports show that gunpowder units don't really come into play before the age typically finish.

 

[Maniac]

So they're leaving the age of exploration out of the Age of Exploration?

 

[Ornen]

So they're leaving the age of exploration out of the Age of Exploration?

seems that as currently set up, AOE covers the first wave of the AOE (namely Spanish & Portuguese), less so the second wave

 

[CivLuvah]

the ages end when they end, independent of turn or the game's stated date (which is way off in Civ 6 anyway).

the exploration tech tree ends with gunpowder, though pre-release reports show that gunpowder units don't really come into play before the age typically finish.

You're right, I seem to missed that one.
What I was supposed to mean is the one I highlighted in bold.

 

[Taefin]

I’m hopeful that playing with the longer age settings and a map script with larger oceans where shipbuilding is needed for more ocean crossings will help it feel like exploration continues into the second wave.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I'm pretty certain we will see quite a few tweaks to Age length and pacing over the course of the game's life, I'd be amazed if they've got it right from the off, I'm expecting a few wonky things.

 

[JNR13]

It's one of the reasons I think a 4th age is neither a given nor desirable. Rather, I think every age could be extended with more content, maybe one expansion each focusing on one of the existing ages.

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.

Spain, Ming, Songhai, (ancient) Hawaii and if you're listing Aztecs then also the Inca. And then also the Mughals, Qing, and Russia from the Modern age.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's one of the reasons I think a 4th age is neither a given nor desirable. Rather, I think every age could be extended with more content, maybe one expansion each focusing on one of the existing ages.


Spain, Ming, Songhai, (ancient) Hawaii and if you're listing Aztecs then also the Inca. And then also the Mughals, Qing, and Russia from the Modern age.

The Inca reached their peak before the 16th Century however, under Pachacuti / Wanya Qapaq / Tupaq Yupanqui. They were an empire in decline and on the brink of civil war which allowed Pizarro's small force to handily defeat them. The Aztecs were at the height of their power when they met the Spanish, and it took several epidemics to dismantle them.

Spain does technically fit the 16th-17th Century Century, but they're modeled after 15th Century Castile, rather than the unified crown. (I still think the correct name of the Civ is Castile, rather than Spain). 17th Century Spain is also a major power more in name than anything else. Dutch independence + the Spanish succession wars did not do them much good.

Fair point on Songhai and Ming, as well as Hawai'i. None of those Civs feel particularly renaissance-y/early modern though in terms of their design. Adding the Ottomans or an Italian civ to the roster can amend that, though, and Bulgaria's inclusion in CotW will also help in the opposite direction, as we also lack Dark Age civs.

 

[UWHabs]

I'm pretty certain we will see quite a few tweaks to Age length and pacing over the course of the game's life, I'd be amazed if they've got it right from the off, I'm expecting a few wonky things.

That, and I'm sure we'll also see the "expanded ages" mods like some people play with in 6 and earlier.

As with everything, it's always a problem in that whatever happens at the end of the era, when the game goes into a reset, you don't really get to use the thing you unlocked at the end. Unless if you add in another like 5-10 techs that just give you like generic +1 bonuses to units but don't unlock anything else, there's always something at the end of that just goes unused.

The part about pacing that some of the streamers mentioned is the whole thing where if you just go wild on science, for example, at some point you will run out of techs, and every time you repeat the last option that reduces the age. So if you want to finish stuff off, you almost have to find a way to turn off your science so you don't force the age too early. That's something that I do think they may need some balance on for pacing. Even if they just added that final repeatable tech as like giving you a choice - add a point to the era marker so it ends earlier, or get XXX to give you another bonus (an attribute point, or something that you can carry over to the next era, or something like that).

 

[Krikkit1]

That, and I'm sure we'll also see the "expanded ages" mods like some people play with in 6 and earlier.

As with everything, it's always a problem in that whatever happens at the end of the era, when the game goes into a reset, you don't really get to use the thing you unlocked at the end. Unless if you add in another like 5-10 techs that just give you like generic +1 bonuses to units but don't unlock anything else, there's always something at the end of that just goes unused.

The part about pacing that some of the streamers mentioned is the whole thing where if you just go wild on science, for example, at some point you will run out of techs, and every time you repeat the last option that reduces the age. So if you want to finish stuff off, you almost have to find a way to turn off your science so you don't force the age too early. That's something that I do think they may need some balance on for pacing. Even if they just added that final repeatable tech as like giving you a choice - add a point to the era marker so it ends earlier, or get XXX to give you another bonus (an attribute point, or something that you can carry over to the next era, or something like that).

The way to Turn off the science is to research the Masteries. Of course if they are flying through while researching the Masteries that is different.
Perhaps a cost boost of x1.5 for Masteries and x3 for Future

As for the Years, that is pretty easy to fix

 

[Ornen]

As for the Years, that is pretty easy to fix

you would think that, but they still haven’t adjusted the year tracker 8 years into Civ 6

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

I’m hopeful that playing with the longer age settings and a map script with larger oceans where shipbuilding is needed for more ocean crossings will help it feel like exploration continues into the second wave.

I really think they overdid the island chains with tiny oceans on both sides. Potentially on purpose? Like get the concept down in game in a "balanced" way (ignore the no reverse distant lands) via the current continents plus, and then later add some more natural looking map gen with larger oceans and hopefully not vertical island chains.

It was funny they used the Caribbean and Canaries in exploration livestream as examples when those islands are notably by the coast and not in the middle of the ocean. Thankfully map mods are pretty much the only ones I use so I'll have no problems long term

 

[Krikkit1]

you would think that, but they still haven’t adjusted the year tracker 8 years into Civ 6

easy doesn’t mean it gets done

 

[Willie5000]

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.

Except Modern starts in 1700 so no, the timeline gap isn’t that large.

 

[Krikkit1]

Except Modern starts in 1700 so no, the timeline gap isn’t that large.

1750 to be exact

They can minimize some of this by having the year progression affected by the age progression (not 1:1 but an effect)

 

[Ornen]

Except Modern starts in 1700 so no, the timeline gap isn’t that large.

it “starts” in 1750 on paper. and the second column of the tech tree dates to 1900. read the post.

you’re not spending any meaningful time in the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries.

 

[untitledjuan]

seems that as currently set up, AOE covers the first wave of the AOE (namely Spanish & Portuguese), less so the second wave

Still, they explored with gunpowder, though

 

[Taefin]

I’m a history buff or anything, but I think the niter bonus +1 to siege and naval units does a decent job reflecting that a small number of crude cannons were used until the bombard became the dominant siege engine.

Now, for me the question is whether this +1-4 bonus (depending on an empire’s relative abundance of niter) will feel significant compared to all other combat bonuses and/or will feel immersive in the absence of any civ with early cannon units.