How would you like civ7 divided into eras?

[BuchiTaton]

There can be no perfect match in different conditions. As the most straightforward factor: in order to make it profitable to protect the population, population must produce enough surplus product to make control profitable instead of slaughter. Even the "iron revolution" does not always lead to sufficient profits. For example, if you still have hoe farming on unproductive lands, the result is predictable.

Discern between the many other possible causes should be doable in all kind of societies if it is a significative factor. Proper samppling is needed, if the studies are not broad and deep enough to separate the factors then there are not conclusive evidence.

Actually, where you can trace the written tradition, that's exactly what happened. Moreover, due to the relative scarcity of an already profitable population, the semi-barbarians are at least in one case more humanistic than the Bronze empires. See Zoroastrianism in the ideological plane and Cyrus the Great in the practical.

Elaborate the direct comparison.

Uhm… So, on the one hand, we have population growth and direct indications of a change in ethics in historical sources. On the other hand, the statement that ethics has not changed, the change of rhetoric occurred from scratch and at the same time the growth of armies magically did not result in total genocide. Moreover, with an acute desire to cut out the defeated, they were cut out almost to zero in the Bronze Age, and not only on the scale of a separate settlement – see the genetic map of western Europe. The "Bronze Age disaster" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse also looked impressive, although military violence is not the only factor there.

The Late Bronze Age Collapse dont help to sustain the role of iron since...
1- Iron weapons were not yet common or superior to bronze ones, therefore this technology did not produced an opportunity for armies to broke the supposed balance. The change to Iron as predominant metal was later, stimulated by the depleted sources and broken trade networks that provided Bronze.
2- Both negative environmental changes and population migrations are more concise factors, these added to the degraded economy and fragile demography. Also, jump to blame supposed "unethical" bronze age cultures would be a mistake since they had over 2K years under that model.

The role of the many different groups of peoples invading from the margins of the civilized world is also obvious (these again point to the importance of the study of "iron revolution" in the ethics of tribal peoples). Urban societies already have formal laws and institutions to work in order, the chaotic element is easier to be found in the influx of barbarian newcomers.

In other words, the version of immutable ethics contradicts elementary logic. In science, such hypotheses are naturally not considered as an alternative – otherwise, you can endlessly refute anything.

The point is not if ethics change, is to determinate the weight of the introduction of iron for such changes. Overrate one element generalizing without solid proofs also contradicts science. There are not objetive universality, synchrony or magnitude in the role of iron for these changes.

It is curious how the mechanism, clearly visible for some weapon revolutions, could not work in the case of iron – despite the fact that for some reason there was no total self-genocide.

Demostrate that "some reason" is needed, not every technological change have the same effect or weight, others factor could be more relevant. By the way show me an study that compare the level of possible "genocide efficiency" between Bronze and Iron societies, and these vs for example different innovations in guns.

 

[reddishrecue]

The division of the classical ages could be the bronze and iron ages.

 

[Ekmek]

I would like the option to speed up or slow down some eras.
Sometimes I like a slow start/ancient period and then feel a drag in the middle ages and want to get to industrial. So it would be nice to adjust gamespeed (tech time, turbs, whatever) at the start of the game

 

[pecheneg]

Discern between the many other possible causes should be doable in all kind of societies if it is a significative factor. .

Of course not. As mentioned above. If poor hunter-gatherers have turned into equally poor hoeing farmers, they will continue to be genocided with the same enthusiasm. If 99% of the effort is spent on catching the enemy, and not killing, there is no point in sharply limiting violence. etc. In other words, the effect may be weak and little noticeable.

Proper samppling is needed

Are all existing cultures, except Neolithic ones, an insufficient sample? They survived the transition to iron without cutting each other. At the same time, the inhabitants themselves conscientiously told about the ethics of civilized regions, there are also plenty of studies on the level of violence for the "barbaric" Iron Age. And no, neither the Greeks of Pericles, nor the Sarmatians and Co. have fallen to the level of "worse than the Neolithic", although the possibilities have increased dramatically.

if the studies are not broad and deep enough to separate the factors then there are not conclusive evidence.

You can see the most convincing proof in the mirror.

Elaborate the direct comparison.

They've already brought him to you. "Avesta" is quite inclined to glorify peaceful labor, and Cyrus the Great used almost modern rhetoric and practice did not diverge from rhetoric. At the same time, the original Aryan ideology did not differ from the word "absolutely" in a special humanism.

The Late Bronze Age Collapse dont help to sustain the role of iron since...
1- Iron weapons were not yet common or superior to bronze ones

I know that perfectly well. That's why he cited the collapse as an example of the effectiveness of genocide with bronze weapons, reread the text.

are more concise factors, these added to the degraded economy and fragile demography. Also, jump to blame supposed "unethical" bronze age cultures would be a mistake since they had over 2K years under that model.

Completely regardless of the root cause, during the collapse, they more than succeeded in the immediate massacre. At the same time, the climatic fluctuations of that period are limited – the "failure" between 450 and 250 BC was even more impressive, but the conquests of Alexander, the wars of the Diadochi, the invasions of the Celts and Parthians are not even close to a global massacre.

Also, jump to blame supposed "unethical" bronze age cultures would be a mistake since they had over 2K years under that model.

And all these 2000 years they have not had strong restrictions. Simply because a sufficiently inefficient army must kill strenuously in order to inflict significant damage to the enemy.

The point is not if ethics change, is to determinate the weight of the introduction of iron for such changes.

Is there some other technology that has dramatically increased the effectiveness of violence and labor productivity in the "axial" period? Or at least comparable?

Overrate one element generalizing without solid proofs also contradicts science.

Name any other one. At first. The development of iron is a key technological revolution, and the effect of it was much stronger than from the bronze innovation. Or do you seriously believe that ideology can achieve dominance if it reduces the effectiveness of the army and the economy compared to competitors?

There are not objetive universality

It cannot be, there are local exceptions to any rule related to local conditions. So what?

synchrony

Regardless of what you mean by this, the requirement of strict synchronicity is, to put it mildly, bizarre. 1. Iron became available at different times in different regions. 2. The mentality in a very traditional society does not change instantly.

or magnitude in the role of iron for these changes.

See above. To deny the large–scale role of the global technological shift is a very bizarre position.

Demostrate that "some reason" is needed,

Do you seriously believe that ideology can achieve dominance if it reduces the efficiency of the army and economy compared to competitors?

not every technological change have the same effect or weight,

Bring them in. At the same time, the effect of mastering iron was extremely powerful – as the textbook says, the zone of civilization expanded by almost an order of magnitude.

By the way show me an study that compare the level of possible "genocide efficiency" between Bronze and Iron societies, and these vs for example different innovations in guns

You obviously
1. Do not imagine the difference in the degree of availability of metal in the Bronze and Iron Ages. Meanwhile, the Bronze Age on average is still the same Neolithic with "inclusions" of bronze. The standard situation is a limited group of privileged characters using metal and stone age around. No axes for every peasant and a wooden stake with a burnt end as the main weapon of the militia.
2. Do not imagine the problem of non-metallic weapons. Meanwhile, the same stone weapon is either a conditional club, or something very brittle and with weak penetrating power, and somewhat higher–quality raw materials like obsidian are also quite rare.

 

[reddishrecue]

Iron age does seem kind of primitive compared to the later metals and chains that the military had in the Middle Ages. Iron age and bronze age did have their armors, but it wasn't as good... sort of like axe men compared to macemen and then men at arms.

 

[pecheneg]

Iron age does seem kind of primitive compared to the later metals and chains that the military had in the Middle Ages. Iron age and bronze age did have their armors, but it wasn't as good... sort of like axe men compared to macemen and then men at arms.

In general, the manner of considering the Iron Age in the Middle East only that before the Persians, and in Western and "Central" Europe - only that before the Romans - is a Western glitch. In my opinion, stupid.
At the same time, even with this approach, chain mail appeared in the "Iron Age" , Solid-forged bronze cuirasses and Co, scaly, laminar and lamellar armor appeared much earlier, scaly - obviously before metal. So in terms of the "cut" of armor, something new appeared only in the late Middle Ages. Everything else was invented earlier. The question was the prevalence.

 

[reddishrecue]

In general, the manner of considering the Iron Age in the Middle East only that before the Persians, and in Western and "Central" Europe - only that before the Romans - is a Western glitch. In my opinion, stupid.
At the same time, even with this approach, chain mail appeared in the "Iron Age" , Solid-forged bronze cuirasses and Co, scaly, laminar and lamellar armor appeared much earlier, scaly - obviously before metal. So in terms of the "cut" of armor, something new appeared only in the late Middle Ages. Everything else was invented earlier. The question was the prevalence.

Right, but the iron age is coming from the Stone and tool ages which make it seem so primitive because the people are still relying on better metal objects. I agree with you that there were chain mails in the Iron age but after that what happened? Did everyone forget how to build such good armors? The dark ages and the pre Medieval ages didn't quite show that the metals kept improving into better metallurgy. Maybe that's why the iron age metal seemed so good and reached a peak where all of a sudden the dark age came and everything about metal was suddenly forgotten.

 

[pecheneg]

Right, but the iron age is coming from the Stone and tool ages which make it seem so primitive because the people are still relying on better metal objects. I agree with you that there were chain mails in the Iron age but after that what happened? Did everyone forget how to build such good armors? The dark ages and the pre Medieval ages didn't quite show that the metals kept improving into better metallurgy. Maybe that's why the iron age metal seemed so good and reached a peak where all of a sudden the dark age came and everything about metal was suddenly forgotten.

1. The Iron Age came without the Bronze stage only on the outright periphery like Africa and Co. At the same time, even the conditional barbarians of Eurasia who have mastered iron rarely look like an outright primitive.
2. Chain mail was the main armor of the Roman army. The pretentious guys in segmental armor, with whom the popular idea of a legionnaire is associated, is a short peak of Roman military development, and the lorica segmentata has never totally dominated.
3. Nevertheless, the segmentation, judging by the analysis of the quality of the metal, is the result of a very impressive development of metallurgy. The second time such a level will be reached already in the Renaissance.
4. Then, yes, there was a severe decline. But a) it was typical on such a scale only for Western Europe. In the same China, when the empire was replaced by barbaric "kingdoms" in the north, heavily armored cavalry, for example, continued to actively operate. The same picture in the then rich Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Co.), etc. b). Chain mail continued to be used in Europe of the dark Ages, although it is suspected that the main part was in the post–apocalypse mode, that is, it was the infinitely repaired stocks of the huge Roman army. Elite units of the Carolingians and Co. used scaly armor – however, perhaps also "post-apocalyptic" or imported. Well, then came the classical Middle Ages.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Just as a general notice regarding message boards, it's not recommended to answer in cutting a post sentence by sentence. Not only that's totally unreadable, but it only shows no will to even hear what people actually intended to say, which generally requires more than a single sentence to be expressed. Generally speaking, answering a post as a single block is more respectful and better received by the people you're answering to.

 

[reddishrecue]

1. The Iron Age came without the Bronze stage only on the outright periphery like Africa and Co. At the same time, even the conditional barbarians of Eurasia who have mastered iron rarely look like an outright primitive.
2. Chain mail was the main armor of the Roman army. The pretentious guys in segmental armor, with whom the popular idea of a legionnaire is associated, is a short peak of Roman military development, and the lorica segmentata has never totally dominated.
3. Nevertheless, the segmentation, judging by the analysis of the quality of the metal, is the result of a very impressive development of metallurgy. The second time such a level will be reached already in the Renaissance.
4. Then, yes, there was a severe decline. But a) it was typical on such a scale only for Western Europe. In the same China, when the empire was replaced by barbaric "kingdoms" in the north, heavily armored cavalry, for example, continued to actively operate. The same picture in the then rich Central Asia (Uzbekistan and Co.), etc. b). Chain mail continued to be used in Europe of the dark Ages, although it is suspected that the main part was in the post–apocalypse mode, that is, it was the infinitely repaired stocks of the huge Roman army. Elite units of the Carolingians and Co. used scaly armor – however, perhaps also "post-apocalyptic" or imported. Well, then came the classical Middle Ages.

In Asia, gunpowder in China was discovered during the bronze and iron ages but it wasn't used like it was used in muskets like it was during the renaissance era. The Mongols did have huge armies that did conquer the Chinese fortifications where there were dynasties.
In Europe, everyone eventually knew about the chains in the Roman Empire which was all of a sudden easy to rebel from Rome because they used their own chain mails against them and made their own provinces away from Rome.
In Africa, animals such as camels and elephants were allowed to be armored. Invaders that would try to invade Rome had chain mails as well during the Iron ages. During the Middle Ages, however, camels were still armed and used in militaries.
[Edit add] Also, irons and metals were used to make cannons while rifles and muskets had their typed of metallurgies later in the renaissance.

 

[luca 83]

More than civilizations divided into eras, we need an ancient age simulation. Medieval , modern , contemporary . Featuring Hellenistic kingdoms, rise fall of Rome, barbarian kingdoms, medieval wars, great discoveries, modern wars, world wars, fall of empires, decolonialism

 

[Zaarin]

More than civilizations divided into eras, we need an ancient age simulation. Medieval , modern , contemporary . Featuring Hellenistic kingdoms, rise fall of Rome, barbarian kingdoms, medieval wars, great discoveries, modern wars, world wars, fall of empires, decolonialism

That might make several interesting games, but not a Civilization game. Civilization is not and was never intended to be a historical simulator.

 

[AspiringScholar]

That might make several interesting games, but not a Civilization game. Civilization is not and was never intended to be a historical simulator.

I think I know what you're saying and generally agree with it, but what do you think of the concept of historical "flavored" or at least a loose modeling of real historical trends and phenomenon? Obviously complexity and detail are sometimes the enemy of fun in this regard, but it's still supposed to "feel" historical, so things like that could be a lot of fun.

 

[Lexicus]

I think I know what you're saying and generally agree with it, but what do you think of the concept of historical "flavored" or at least a loose modeling of real historical trends and phenomenon? Obviously complexity and detail are sometimes the enemy of fun in this regard, but it's still supposed to "feel" historical, so things like that could be a lot of fun.

Civ is a 4x game based on history, sort of, rather than a historical sim.

 

[Zaarin]

I think I know what you're saying and generally agree with it, but what do you think of the concept of historical "flavored" or at least a loose modeling of real historical trends and phenomenon? Obviously complexity and detail are sometimes the enemy of fun in this regard, but it's still supposed to "feel" historical, so things like that could be a lot of fun.

On the one hand, the historical flavor is absolutely what draws me to Civ, but on the other hand I don't really want to see it wander into Paradox territory (although I love their games, too). At the end of the day, I want Civ to be a historically flavored 4X, balancing that flavor with what makes a fun 4X game. Even if things like Black Death/plagues or Hun invasions or whatever were added, I'd hate to see them scripted to happen at a certain time just because "that's when they happened historically."

 

[AspiringScholar]

Yeah, I also enjoy the older Paradox titles and sometimes am in the mood for their more granular level of realistic detail, and wouldn't want to see civ sacrifice its fun gameplay elements in the name of being more historically simulative, but there's still a relationship between the concepts of "based on" history and "simulative" of history. There's basically no historical simulation which is free from some meaningful level of streamlining realism in the name of playability or fun, and Civ is definitely more libertine in this regard, but there's still a range or threshold of this, and I think it can go too far in this regard, and personally, I think the more recent titles have done this, and I wouldn't like to see that trend continue. On the other hand, lots of people are having a good time with 5 and 6, so the games are doing what they're suppsed to! I'll likely be sticking to Civ 4, EU3, Victoria 2, old Total War for my gameplay leisure anyway, regardless of how the series continues. Nice to get others' perspectives, though.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, I also enjoy the older Paradox titles and sometimes am in the mood for their more granular level of realistic detail, and wouldn't want to see civ sacrifice its fun gameplay elements in the name of being more historically simulative, but there's still a relationship between the concepts of "based on" history and "simulative" of history. There's basically no historical simulation which is free from some meaningful level of streamlining realism in the name of playability or fun, and Civ is definitely more libertine in this regard, but there's still a range or threshold of this, and I think it can go too far in this regard, and personally, I think the more recent titles have done this, and I wouldn't like to see that trend continue. On the other hand, lots of people are having a good time with 5 and 6, so the games are doing what they're suppsed to! I'll likely be sticking to Civ 4, EU3, Victoria 2, old Total War for my gameplay leisure anyway, regardless of how the series continues. Nice to get others' perspectives, though.

I would have said it was the other way around. Where the first three titles were rather flippant about their historical pretext, the franchise has taken its historical flavor more seriously from Civ4 onward, with Civ6 in particular being much more conscious of its historical source material. It's not perfect and there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think the franchise is moving in the right direction with that regard. Knowing that @Andrew Johnson [FXS] works for Firaxis now gives me great hope for how Civ7 will treat its historical sources.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I would have said it was the other way around. Where the first three titles were rather flippant about their historical pretext, the franchise has taken its historical flavor more seriously from Civ4 onward, with Civ6 in particular being much more conscious of its historical source material. It's not perfect and there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think the franchise is moving in the right direction with that regard. Knowing that @Andrew Johnson [FXS] works for Firaxis now gives me great hope for how Civ7 will treat its historical sources.

I played a lot of Civ V around the time it was new and so am quite familiar with that one, but am only passingly familiar with VI. What are some ways that you find it to be more historically grounded? Just not disagreeing, just unaware (though the art style at least certainly does not lend one to think so at first blush!).

 

[Zaarin]

I played a lot of Civ V around the time it was new and so am quite familiar with that one, but am only passingly familiar with VI. What are some ways that you find it to be more historically grounded? Just not disagreeing, just unaware (though the art style at least certainly does not lend one to think so at first blush!).

I would say the civs, their abilities, and their leaders are on the whole better researched. The policy cards and governments are more detailed and nuanced than previous games' government systems (the problem of certain cards simply being better than others in all circumstances being a separate problem of game design, but the idea at any rate is good). Unique Great People has given the opportunity to showcase individuals who did not lead a civ and who are not just names on a generic Great Person (so it actually makes a difference whether your Great Scientist is Hildegard von Bingen or Isaac Newton, for example, beyond just an arbitrary name). Immaculate research was done for the musical themes for each civ, with most civs having themes based on folk songs and using civ-appropriate instruments (including a reproduction of a Mesopotamian golden lyre for Babylon's theme and a carnyx for Gaul's). City lists are still a mess, though, but hey, at least that's an easy fix for mods. Just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. As for the art style, I think it's just a matter of taste. I think Civ6 looks great (mostly) and Civ5 may be the most hideous game I've ever played, but many people feel the opposite and that's fine, too.

 

[luca 83]

I would have said it was the other way around. Where the first three titles were rather flippant about their historical pretext, the franchise has taken its historical flavor more seriously from Civ4 onward, with Civ6 in particular being much more conscious of its historical source material. It's not perfect and there's plenty of room for improvement, but I think the franchise is moving in the right direction with that regard. Knowing that @Andrew Johnson [FXS] works for Firaxis now gives me great hope for how Civ7 will treat its historical sources.

not our history but a simulation for example of the colonies as in in civ colonization the barbarian invasions must not be historical but simulate their dynamics!