How to fix the classical era

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yeah, definitely!

In dark ages scientific research is slowed down % (depending on Civ), change of world wide scale plague epidemic (lets get those vultures circling above the cities) is high and barbarian activity rises 50%

SMAC style:

Then in the renaissance scientific research slows down for asian civs?

In the modern era scientific research slows down for african and middle eastern civs?

In the ancient era scientific research slows down for american civs?

It doesn't work like that. The 'dark ages' are a purely Eurocentric concept and ignore the grander world, which is exactly what Civilisation is about. Also the 'dark ages' are a myth, but that's another story.

 

[MARDUK80]

It doesn't work like that. The 'dark ages' are a purely Eurocentric concept and ignore the grander world, which is exactly what Civilisation is about. Also the 'dark ages' are a myth, but that's another story.

I must disagree with you on that.

With inclusion of the Dark Age I probably wouldn't have tanks, nukes and such well before their time... as it is a bit of a "problem" in CiV that it lets you research way too quickly

Then in the renaissance scientific research slows down for asian civs?

In the modern era scientific research slows down for african and middle eastern civs?

In the ancient era scientific research slows down for american civs?

As I like everything to be historically as accurate as possible, this (like everything else here) would be a gameplay element and thus would occur for every Civ when they reach the Era.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Definitely. Something like attached maybe

You know, I was trying to get it to work and failing miserably. That's definitely much better than anything I came up with. Although I had a slightly different focus and wanted to include techs like Stirrups and possibly either Athletics or Drama.

One little nitpick. By putting Steel where it is, you're making it seem deceptively later than it really is. It's really a first tier medieval tech.

 

[nokmirt]

Then in the renaissance scientific research slows down for asian civs?

In the modern era scientific research slows down for african and middle eastern civs?

In the ancient era scientific research slows down for american civs?

It doesn't work like that. The 'dark ages' are a purely Eurocentric concept and ignore the grander world, which is exactly what Civilisation is about. Also the 'dark ages' are a myth, but that's another story.

Some say that is the case. I disagree on that though. It would still be an interesting topic for a world history thread. You know the reason I mentioned the idea of using an era in between Classical and Medieval times, is to act as an interim. So you don't feel like your just jumping into the Middle Ages, before you blink your eyes. I want it to feel more like a process to get to that point. Myth or not the Dark Ages era would serve that purpose.

In Europe at that time, after the fall of Rome, innovation did lapse quite a bit, in what was the Western Empire. Residents of Western Europe went from living in huge marble cities, to living in squalor in thatched huts. Tribes replaced thriving civilization. In those areas mankind did take more than a few steps backward. However, the Muslims, Chinese, and many other cultures keep up in science. It cannot be denied why during the Crusades, the Saracens were far ahead of the Crusaders in many areas of science and technology. Do you know why? Because those in Western Europe destroyed the advancements and knowledge of the Romans and Greeks. The Muslims preserved them.

This is my opinion why the Dark Ages were the Dark Ages, and should not be overlooked. Keep in mind this happened in Western Europe not the entire world.

 

[CYZ]

I think another column should be added. Some techs can be added both to the classical and medieval era, then there are several techs that can go from medieval to classical. It is ******** to see currency in the medieval era for example, civ V's idea of the classical era is a very odd one if you ask me.

 

[Zhahz]

It's a game, not a historical simulation, it's based on history but doesn't need to be historically accurate.

Extending early research times might be good idea for a mod.

 

[Louis XXIV]

In Europe at that time, after the fall of Rome, innovation did lapse quite a bit, in what was the Western Empire. Residents of Western Europe went from living in huge marble cities, to living in squalor in thatched huts. Tribes replaced thriving civilization. In those areas mankind did take more than a few steps backward.

However, it's important to ask if, technologically, it was a step backward. I agree that state-run government collapsed ad things were more village-centered. But that's different from a technological dark ages.

In agriculture, the heavy plow and the horse collar were invented, revolutionizing agriculture in the north. Also, they invented soap, which is still pretty useful.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Some say that is the case. I disagree on that though. It would still be an interesting topic for a world history thread. You know the reason I mentioned the idea of using an era in between Classical and Medieval times, is to act as an interim. So you don't feel like your just jumping into the Middle Ages, before you blink your eyes. I want it to feel more like a process to get to that point. Myth or not the Dark Ages era would serve that purpose.

In Europe at that time, after the fall of Rome, innovation did lapse quite a bit, in what was the Western Empire. Residents of Western Europe went from living in huge marble cities, to living in squalor in thatched huts. Tribes replaced thriving civilization. In those areas mankind did take more than a few steps backward. However, the Muslims, Chinese, and many other cultures keep up in science. It cannot be denied why during the Crusades, the Saracens were far ahead of the Crusaders in many areas of science and technology. Do you know why? Because those in Western Europe destroyed the advancements and knowledge of the Romans and Greeks. The Muslims preserved them.

This is my opinion why the Dark Ages were the Dark Ages, and should not be overlooked. Keep in mind this happened in Western Europe not the entire world.

You are greatly misinformed if you believe residents of western europe were living in huge marble cities, and also if you think that changed overnight. Rome fell yes, much of the rest of europe remained on its trudging path forward. It never declined, halted or slowed, it simply carried on unaffected by a concept victorian historians labelled them with.

The idea of the dark ages is more or less completely a fallacy and this has achieved a very broad consensus amongst modern academics. The dark ages were a supposed collapse of civilisation perceived by the Victorian historians, who romanticised the Roman empire upon which their British empire was based, between the classical peak of the roman empire, and the contemporary peak of the british empire. If you wish to argue the dark ages were a period of decline in Europe i'm not one to stop you, but you would quite literally be arguing against history.

In reality there was no dark age for science, culture or anything else. Yes rome fell, but christianity spread throughout the whole of europe, and as has been mentioned important agricultural tech was discovered, stained glass windows first came into use, the silk road grew, etc.

If anything the 'dark ages' were more lively than the classical era before it, as it should have been as civilisations marched onward with greater capability from it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

You are greatly misinformed if you believe residents of western europe were living in huge marble cities, and also if you think that changed overnight. Rome fell yes, much of the rest of europe remained on its trudging path forward. It never declined, halted or slowed, it simply carried on unaffected by a concept victorian historians labelled them with.

The idea of the dark ages is more or less completely a fallacy and this has achieved a very broad consensus amongst modern academics. The dark ages were a supposed collapse of civilisation perceived by the Victorian historians, who romanticised the Roman empire upon which their British empire was based, between the classical peak of the roman empire, and the contemporary peak of the british empire. If you wish to argue the dark ages were a period of decline in Europe i'm not one to stop you, but you would quite literally be arguing against history.

In reality there was no dark age for science, culture or anything else. Yes rome fell, but christianity spread throughout the whole of europe, and as has been mentioned important agricultural tech was discovered, stained glass windows first came into use, the silk road grew, etc.

If anything the 'dark ages' were more lively than the classical era before it, as it should have been as civilisations marched onward with greater capability from it.

Well, to an extent . . .
But you can't wipe out 40% of the population with the Plague and expect there to be no ill effects to a Civilization's "advance" . . .

 

[Louis XXIV]

I should add that I was only referring to things invented before 1000 AD. Some were in the 600s before even the so-called Carolingian Renaissance. The Horse-Collar and Heavy Plow were actually vital. They allowed successful agriculture in areas that were essentially the backwoods of the Roman Empire. Then there was the stirrup, which I don't personally think did much, but is widely credited as being a crucial invention.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Well, to an extent . . .
But you can't wipe out 40% of the population with the Plague and expect there to be no ill effects to a Civilization's "advance" . . .

The plague taught in schools that wiped out 1/3rd of Europes population was in the 14th century, the renaissance started in the 15th.

If you mean the plague of justinian this mostly affected the Eastern Mediterranean and middle east. This only helped lead to the fall of afflicted powers and the rise of new ones, like the Arabian caliphate and in Europe, the Bulgarian empire.

 

[nokmirt]

Very good points by everyone on the "Dark Ages", every point valid. One of you said that residents certainly did not live in huge marble cities at the time Rome fell, and that change did not happen overnight. I was speaking generally in that sense. Of course change is a slow process. That is always the case for the most part. Really though I did not mean to start a debate about all this. I simply was trying to figure out how we can make it so, within CiV, there is a gap between Classical and Medieval times. An era of some sort aptly named, so not to offend anyone, could serve this purpose. Saying the "Dark Ages" is like holding a smoking gun!

I should add that I was only referring to things invented before 1000 AD. Some were in the 600s before even the so-called Carolingian Renaissance. The Horse-Collar and Heavy Plow were actually vital. They allowed successful agriculture in areas that were essentially the backwoods of the Roman Empire. Then there was the stirrup, which I don't personally think did much, but is widely credited as being a crucial invention.

Louis XXIV you are right of course. The stirrup was important in war, because the rider could set his weight on the horse's back and that momentum made for a much stronger impact with a spear or lance. Fighting on horseback with a sword or axe was made easier due to the stirrup. The rider was not so keen to fall off his horse during combat. But yeah, it did not make a huge difference on society as a whole. Anyway, we cannot say that the Dark Ages was without technological advances. Many say it points to a time in Europe when higher learning ground to a halt, but in other areas such as the Middle East and Africa, ancient Greek and Persian texts were analyzed, translated, and catalogued. In any case, an Age should desrcibe the entire world at that time, not just a part of it. Just because it may have been "Dark" in Europe does not mean there was darkness eveywhere.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The plague taught in schools that wiped out 1/3rd of Europes population was in the 14th century, the renaissance started in the 15th.

Yeah, it's important to keep in mind that the plague was a regular occurrence in the Renaissance. BTW, the Renaissance started before the 15th Century. Dante was in the 13th Century, Petrarch was in the 14th. Giotto was in the 13th Century as well.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Saying the "Dark Ages" is like holding a smoking gun!

Put that thing down!

I suppose they could call it the 'Abrahamic' period, though i'm sure that would rattle a few cages.

In any case, i don't think we need a new era, i think they need to delay getting into the medieval, and i think the best method for doing that is adding an extra layer in the ancient era, and allowing copper units and early siege weaponry so rushing to the classical era isn't so necessary for warfare.

The classical era could do with extending, but i don't think it needs it so bad. By extending the ancient era, you would push back the classical era, and to a lesser extent the medieval era, which is what is really needed.

Yeah, it's important to keep in mind that the plague was a regular occurrence in the Renaissance. BTW, the Renaissance started before the 15th Century. Dante was in the 13th Century, Petrarch was in the 14th. Giotto was in the 13th Century as well.

By bad, i mixed up the renaissance and the early modern era.

 

[blackcatatonic]

You are greatly misinformed if you believe residents of western europe were living in huge marble cities, and also if you think that changed overnight. Rome fell yes, much of the rest of europe remained on its trudging path forward. It never declined, halted or slowed, it simply carried on unaffected by a concept victorian historians labelled them with.

The idea of the dark ages is more or less completely a fallacy and this has achieved a very broad consensus amongst modern academics. The dark ages were a supposed collapse of civilisation perceived by the Victorian historians, who romanticised the Roman empire upon which their British empire was based, between the classical peak of the roman empire, and the contemporary peak of the british empire. If you wish to argue the dark ages were a period of decline in Europe i'm not one to stop you, but you would quite literally be arguing against history.

In reality there was no dark age for science, culture or anything else. Yes rome fell, but christianity spread throughout the whole of europe, and as has been mentioned important agricultural tech was discovered, stained glass windows first came into use, the silk road grew, etc.

If anything the 'dark ages' were more lively than the classical era before it, as it should have been as civilisations marched onward with greater capability from it.

^ What he said.

The definition of 'the medieval period' is fairly fluid in any case and in Civ terms I'd always assumed it encompassed the post-Classical period once known as the Dark Ages. I don't know if there's room for another early era - though the Classical Age should probably be expanded.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Put that thing down!

I suppose they could call it the 'Abrahamic' period, though i'm sure that would rattle a few cages.

In any case, i don't think we need a new era, i think they need to delay getting into the medieval, and i think the best method for doing that is adding an extra layer in the ancient era, and allowing copper units and early siege weaponry so rushing to the classical era isn't so necessary for warfare.

(Yeah, I was referring to the Justinian one in my previous post, for reference: newer "Civs" of course took their place like you said but had some catching up to do.)

Anyhow, I agree. No need to shoehorn another era in there. Some more interesting techs around that period might be nice, though (as you're saying).

 

[Aggie1]

I do like the idea of a period every 100 or so turns where everything slows, say gold and tech and culture(not sure about production). Somewhat like what happened in Alpha Centauri, though with effects different from that game.

 

[dexters]

RE: New techs - not impossible considering they will need to lengthen the early game a tad to keep religion relevant a little more.

Though we don't want to end up in a situation where standard games feel like playing on epic speed.

Not that I would complain, but as I said earlier, pacing isn't a huge issue. And the only thing we know so far is religion gradually recedes during the renaissance. And I suspect each civ will experience this a little differently, based on social policy choices.

But that's another open question given how we are not yet clear how piety /rationalism/patronage has been rebalanced with all these new features.

 

[Louis XXIV]

By bad, i mixed up the renaissance and the early modern era.

I think they're kind of always mixed together. The 15th Century is the High Renaissance. But all this discussion really shows is that dividing history into "eras" marked by stereotypes about what that era was supposed to have been about really isn't all that fruitful.

 

[Steamwerks]

It cannot be denied why during the Crusades, the Saracens were far ahead of the Crusaders in many areas of science and technology. Do you know why? Because those in Western Europe destroyed the advancements and knowledge of the Romans and Greeks. The Muslims preserved them.

Well, the Byzantines really deserve most of the credit for preserving the legacy of Greco-Roman science, arts, and letters. While it's true the Muslims did make their own significant contributions, they were rather selective in their stewardship, often focusing on practical sciences such as medicine.