How would you like civ7 divided into eras?

[Evie]

I mean, the stone age is also *largely outside the scope of the game* (and should stay that way). The game begin toward the very tail end of the stone age. So it's a very poor argument for a long metal, bronze or iron age. But splitting the Iron age is difficult - the development and spread of milling technology several centuries after Iron is maybe the only one that come to mind and it intervenes a little earlier than I'd like.

I think we could work with a long iron age provided we have a shorter age after it. What I would do is as follow:

1. Put all advances (civics, techs) back in a single advancement tree, researched by the same resource (knowledge, represented by little books rather than beakers). Have that tree split in a top (technological advances), middle (scientific advances) and bottom (social advances) segment. Technological advances unlock units and certain buildings ; Social advances unlock government, policies and certain buildings, and scientific advances unlock certain special abilities and serve as prerequisites for social and technological advances.

2. There are Social and Technological eras, going on concurently, reflecting a civ's progress through the top and bottom section of the three. These can absolutely be very lopsided: you could have a Stone Age Enlightenment civilization if a civ hasn't met the requirement for technological era but has progressed very fast on scientific ones.

3. Entering an age is based on *using* the technology, not on *having* it. You don't enter the iron age by discovering iron working ; you enter the iron age by building a certain number of units or improvement that require iron to build. Likewise bronze (units or improvement requiring copper), gunpowder (saltpeter) and so forth.

4, As a result of the above two: eras can be skipped. A civ that never build bronze-using units or iron-using units (no copper, no iron, or skipped researching iron working altogether) but passes directly to gunpowder-using units might skip right from the stone age to the gunpowder age.

In that light, I would go with the following technological ages linked to the following resources:
Stone (starting) - Bronze (copper) - Iron (iron) - Gunpowder (saltpeter) - Steam (coal) - Combustion (oil) - Contemporary (resource TBD, possibly involving an alternative between using uranium and renewable electricity)

Not sure what the corresponding social ages would be, other than the first would be pre or protohistorical a status that only change with the spread of writing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1. Put all advances (civics, techs) back in a single advancement tree, researched by the same resource (knowledge, represented by little books rather than beakers). Have that tree split in a top (technological advances), middle (scientific advances) and bottom (social advances) segment. Technological advances unlock units and certain buildings ; Social advances unlock government, policies and certain buildings, and scientific advances unlock certain special abilities and serve as prerequisites for social and technological advances.

I'd be for this if it finally allowed for libraries and universities to do more than just be hubs for scientific advancement.

In that light, I would go with the following technological ages linked to the following resources:
Stone (starting) - Bronze (copper) - Iron (iron) - Gunpowder (saltpeter) - Steam (coal) - Combustion (oil) - Contemporary (resource TBD, possibly involving an alternative between using uranium and renewable electricity)

Not sure what the corresponding social ages would be, other than the first would be pre or protohistorical a status that only change with the spread of writing.

Neolithic-Philosophical-Feudal-Renaissance-Enlightenment-Nationalism-Information?

 

[Evie]

I'd start with pre-historical or proto-historical times, honestly (neolithic is just stone age), until the spread of written records..

Protohistorical (pre-significant written record), Ancient (after writing, prior to classical philosophers), Classical/Philosophical (classical philosophers), Post-Classical/Medieval/Scholastic (formalized education and transmission of knowledge with universities and chinese examination system), Scientific (scientific method developed, questioning of past authorities into enlightenment), Industrial (standardization and specialization of research), Information *could* work. Industrial is the most likely candidate for a split here, between the 19th and 20th century,

Note that in this classification "significant written records" refers to records your civ would understand, not records a future civ in 3000 years can understand.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd start with pre-historical or proto-historical times, honestly (neolithic is just stone age), until the spread of written records..

Protohistorical (pre-significant written record), Ancient (after writing, prior to classical philosophers), Classical/Philosophical (classical philosophers), Post-Classical/Medieval/Scholastic (formalized education and transmission of knowledge with universities and chinese examination system), Scientific (scientific method developed, questioning of past authorities into enlightenment), Industrial (standardization and specialization of research), Information *could* work. Industrial is the most likely candidate for a split here, between the 19th and 20th century,

Note that in this classification "significant written records" refers to records your civ would understand, not records a future civ in 3000 years can understand.

Honestly many of those, such as Industrial, sounded more technological than what would be considered a "cultural age" which is why I avoided using that term.
Though I do think for simplicity reasons maybe separate technological and social ages should just not exist considering we'd still be using the typical Ancient, Classical, Medieval etc., for the most part anyway.

 

[SandFli]

In that light, I would go with the following technological ages linked to the following resources:
Stone (starting) - Bronze (copper) - Iron (iron) - Gunpowder (saltpeter) - Steam (coal) - Combustion (oil) - Contemporary (resource TBD, possibly involving an alternative between using uranium and renewable electricity)

I agree that Technological Ages (perhaps eras, full stop) should revolve around use of particular resources & Technologies, which gives clear strategic & research focus for each Age.
The only alternative I can fathom to divide the Iron Age, and include others, while relating to a specific resource, would be Porcelain (which doesn't fit right either):

Stone Age

Bronze Age

Iron Age

Porcelain Age

Gunpowder Age

Steam Age

Combustion Age

Information Age

So instead if we were to include other resources (e.g. Horses), while keeping the eras as simplified as possible (for maximum impact & depth), it might appear roughly as follows:

Stone Age (~10,000-4000BC)	Bronze Age (~4000-1000BC)	Iron Age (~1000BC-1250)	Gunpowder Age (~1250-1750)	Machine Age (~1750-1950)	Information Age (~1950-2050?)
Stone (Flint, Obsidian, later: Concrete)	Copper (later used in electronics)	Iron (later used as Steel)	Saltpetre	Oil (+Steel)	Aluminium (+Copper)
Clay (pottery, for buildings, supplies)	Horses (for cavalry, chariots, trade)	Lumber (for ships, buildings)	Fabric (Cotton, Hemp, etc. for ships)	Coal (for power, ships, trains)	Uranium (+Concrete)

The upper resource line represents the primary 'Strategic' resource of the era, making the most effective Military units of the Age, and aiding Production.
The lower resource line represents complimentary 'Strategic' resources that are most important in-but not exclusive to- the era, mostly for Crafts, Traders, Power, plus Naval & Support units.
The dates indicated for each Age are very vague (e.g. Bronze Age begins aprox. half way into the Copper Age). They are the earliest possible date (for most advanced players) and show a pattern of each Age consistently decreasing.
Since the Steam Age and Combustion Age would each be fairly short, I have kept only a combined Machine Age in the table, which incorporates both respective resources, making Combustion an upgrade on earlier powered engines.

Neolithic-Philosophical-Feudal-Renaissance-Enlightenment-Nationalism-Information?

[/URL]

Cultural eras are tougher to preset, since they are based more so on complex political/popular/personal behaviours, and follow a less linear/progressive path throughout history in different places at different times than Technology (which almost never goes 'backwards', and has a 'hard' objectively recognizable base that can clearly explain the age we live in), so forgive the following:

Stone Age (+Megaliths)	Bronze Age (Smelting+Alloys)	Iron Age (Iron Working+Casting)	Gunpowder Age (Gunpowder+Explosives)	Machine Age (Machinery+Steam+Combustion)	Information Age (Radio+Comrputing+AI)
Prehistoric (+Artistic Symbolism?)	Ancient (Glyphs+Writing+Administration)	Middle/Classical/Philosophical (Philosophy+Theology+Education)	Renaissance? (Rationalism+Calculus)	Enlightenment?/Industrial? (Specialiazation+Unions/Rights)	Global?/Modern? (Broadcast+Internet+Social Media)

Each row shows 1+ Techs/Civics to research and deploy as entry points to a new Age, placed at different points throughout that Age, and followed to advance through that Age, onto the next.
Perhaps Science & Culture are for researching the seperate sides of the same tree, but the middle row requires both, unevenly or equally?
The top row is mostly Science based, unlocks Units, and allows crossover into the corresponding Cultural Era, or following onto the next Technological step of the current Age.
The bottom row is mostly Culture based, unlocks Buildings, and allows crossover into the Technological Age, or following onto the next Cultural step of the current Era.
These key advances sit around the middle of the Knowledge tree, operating as bottlenecks & bridges into different Technological Ages and Cultural Eras.
Some related Techs & Civics will intersect with this middle way, to slow forward progression through Ages/Eras, while others will branch off, to upgrade abilities within the current Age/Era.
Players do not have to enter every Age/Era at the same [earliest] research point if cutting across the middle, perhaps skipping ahead 1 or 2 places, or even entire Ages/Eras, if far behind.

Do they clash or do they combine? Would Dark/Golden Ages (is the Renaissance (in Italy) not simply a Golden Age?), Governments, and Religions/Ideologies better replace 'Cultural eras'?

 

[Evie]

Combining the steam and combustion ages I find to be a real mistake: the two were distictConsidering how much shorter turns are in the 1800s-1900s. Considering the length of game turns (we're talking around 70-80 turns for each of those eras at standard speeds, which is comparable with the length of the unsplit iron and bronze age), and the speed of technological progress in those eras, three ages rather than two (Steam (to around 1910-20, Combustion (to 1980-1990 or so), Electronic (now and near future) - for 1750-2050 really.

(Lumping everything 1950 to the near future together because the first transistors and limited electronic uses in some products appeared around that time would especially be a bad design choice. The industrial (oil)-based economy and society remained predominant for decades after). Better start the electronic/information age later with the spread of consumer electronic through the 80s and especially the 90s.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'd start with pre-historical or proto-historical times, honestly (neolithic is just stone age), until the spread of written records..

Protohistorical (pre-significant written record), Ancient (after writing, prior to classical philosophers), Classical/Philosophical (classical philosophers), Post-Classical/Medieval/Scholastic (formalized education and transmission of knowledge with universities and chinese examination system), Scientific (scientific method developed, questioning of past authorities into enlightenment), Industrial (standardization and specialization of research), Information *could* work. Industrial is the most likely candidate for a split here, between the 19th and 20th century,

Note that in this classification "significant written records" refers to records your civ would understand, not records a future civ in 3000 years can understand.

I concluded some time ago that no possible division into Eras, technological or cultural, will not leave out Somebody that somebody else wants to include in the game as a playable Civ. I've already commented on the number of civilizations/regions who didn't follow the technological 'norm', but would also point out that damn few peoples and areas ever went through a cultural 'renaissance' or developed either enlightenment or rational philosophical doctrines on their own.
But, if you are going to discuss the problem, more power to you. Just some comments:

'Protohistorical' is generally taken to mean, in historiography, that a group has no written records of their own, but are mentioned in written records of their neighbors. As examples, the native North Americans and the classical Scythians are Protohistorical when first mentioned by Other Peoples.
To distinguish, 'Prehistorical' means there are no written records contemporary with that group or culture from any source, and so covers Everybody before about 4000 BCE.

'Neolithic' is NOT 'just stone age', it is the last of the 'stone ages' and coincides and overlaps with such very important developments as monumental stonework, agriculture, most animal domestication, walled settlements and cities, evidence of Formal Heirarchy in those cities (and, therefore, social and political organization beyond the family , tribe or clan), organized religion and religious structures, and the earliest Metallurgy and rather sophisticated woodworking. Also evidence for astronomical observation and calendrical measurements, although we are mostly guessing as to all the uses they put these to.

'Industrial' has had a lot of definitions, many now obsolete. It originally was used (back when I was in University, which was nearly Protohistoric) to mean when people began applying artificial power to things, as opposed to human or animal power. That's the obsolete definition, because we now know that water and wind power were applied to 'industrial' processes back in 'classical' times in places as different as Rome, Persia and China (and in at least one specific instance, India). Research was specialized as early as 400 BCE in the Ortygia Workshop in Syracuse and, at least in literary searches and translations of 'scientific' works, by 1000 CE in places like Toledo and Cordoba in Andalusia, and a little later in northern Europe.

I think the best Industrial definition now would be the application of artificial power AND machinery to Production. That is, not just multiple waterwheels with sophisticated gearing, which was available to the Romans and Chinese, but artificial power from water, wind, steam or other sources to drive multi[le machines that mass-produced identical items - the Factory and Mass Production, followed closely by Machine-Made Tools and Parts which allowed precision manufacturing and 'real' Mass Production. These techniques were also applied to the dissemination of knowledge in things like the steam-powered rotary press and, therefore, mass media book and newspaper publishing, which made 'research' virtually universal - it was almost impossible to keep any discovery of any kind local, national, or secret when it could potentially be published and in the hands of millions of people within hours or days.

The sub-division of Industrial into Steam and Combustion is, I think, a little inaccurate: in 1900 only 22% of all the automobiles in the USA were powered by the internal Combustion engine: 40% were by Steam, 38% by Electricity, and it was the advent of cheap and near-universal Electricity that transformed the way everyone did everything. Electrification would be a better 2nd Stage for the Industrial Era.

Just for discussion, here's a set of Eras given non-Europocentric titles and providing for framework for a 500 turn game with approximately equal numbers of turns in each Era:

Neolithic.....60 turns, 100 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 10,000 - 4000 BCE (6000 years)

Ancient ..... 60 turns, 50 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 4,000 - 1000 BCE (3000 years)

Classical ..... 60 turns, 25 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1000 BCE - 500 AD (1500 years)

Post Classical ..... 60 turns, 15 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 500 - 1400 CE (900 years) 60 15

Early Modern ..... 60 turns, 5 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1400 - 1700 CE (300 years)

Modern ..... 70 turns, 3 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1700 - 1900 CE (200 years)

Late Modern ..... 70 turns, 1 year/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1900 - 1970 CE (70 years)

Contemporary ..... 60 turns, 1 year/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1970 - 2030 CE (60 years)

Near Future ..... 30 - 60 turns, 1 year/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 2030 - 2060 CE (30 years, extendable to 2090 and 60 years if desired)

 

[Evie]

Context kinda matters, Boris. This was not meant as an absolute era classification but was in the context of my earlier proposal of a dual-era system with a technological era (stone-bronze-iron-gunpowder-steam-combustion-electronics) couoled with a cultural (or so) era (prehistorical-classical-scholastic-scientific-industrial-information). So a civ could be a a Bronze Age Scholastic Civilization or an Iron Age Prehistorical civilization depending on how they progress up each tree.

Hence "just stone age" for neolithics refer to the stone age already being an era on the technological side, which definitely represent the neolithic (ie, "this is just another word for this thing which is already in the other list", not "this is an unimportant part of prehistory"), so having both it in technological and neolithic in cultural make no sense, where protohistorical/prehistorical (= no written or equivalent record in their own, so technically proto, but pre might be easier to use) works much better as a cultural signifier. Likewise, the narrow definition of industrial is because it refers to industrial culture, not industrial technology (that's the steam age).

Note that I set 1910-20 over 1900 as the threshold of steam-to-combustion. This also works better than a 1900 threshold due to the way turns are structured in civ - shockingly 1750-1900 and 1900-1960 are both 60 turns at standard speed, as are 1960-2020 and 2020-2050. Still,electricity over combustion is an interesting idea!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Cultural eras are tougher to preset, since they are based more so on complex political/popular/personal behaviours, and follow a less linear/progressive path throughout history in different places at different times than Technology (which almost never goes 'backwards', and has a 'hard' objectively recognizable base that can clearly explain the age we live in), so forgive the following:

Stone Age (+Megaliths)	Bronze Age (Smelting+Alloys)	Iron Age (Iron Working+Casting)	Gunpowder Age (Gunpowder+Explosives)	Machine Age (Machinery+Steam+Combustion)	Information Age (Radio+Comrputing+AI)
Prehistoric (+Artistic Symbolism?)	Ancient (Glyphs+Writing+Administration)	Middle/Classical/Philosophical (Philosophy+Theology+Education)	Renaissance? (Rationalism+Calculus)	Enlightenment?/Industrial? (Specialiazation+Unions/Rights)	Global?/Modern? (Broadcast+Internet+Social Media)

Each row shows 1+ Techs/Civics to research and deploy as entry points to a new Age, placed at different points throughout that Age, and followed to advance through that Age, onto the next.
Perhaps Science & Culture are for researching the seperate sides of the same tree, but the middle row requires both, unevenly or equally?
The top row is mostly Science based, unlocks Units, and allows crossover into the corresponding Cultural Era, or following onto the next Technological step of the current Age.
The bottom row is mostly Culture based, unlocks Buildings, and allows crossover into the Technological Age, or following onto the next Cultural step of the current Era.
These key advances sit around the middle of the Knowledge tree, operating as bottlenecks & bridges into different Technological Ages and Cultural Eras.
Some related Techs & Civics will intersect with this middle way, to slow forward progression through Ages/Eras, while others will branch off, to upgrade abilities within the current Age/Era.
Players do not have to enter every Age/Era at the same [earliest] research point if cutting across the middle, perhaps skipping ahead 1 or 2 places, or even entire Ages/Eras, if far behind.

Do they clash or do they combine? Would Dark/Golden Ages (is the Renaissance (in Italy) not simply a Golden Age?), Governments, and Religions/Ideologies better replace 'Cultural eras'?

You are right in that I don't believe that culture should follow a linear path. What I do think could happen is as you progress through the technological tree is that certain technologies will obviously open up certain branches of a social progress tree. For example Writing as a Tech will take you down the opportunity to progress down a Philosophical/Educational culture branch, which you could also choose not to do.

 

[luca 83]

If we are sticking to a 500 turn game, I think 6 eras. For new players that should be about 480 turns (each era lasting 80 turns), for speed runners probably 40.
Personally I'd go
Ancient - Medieval - Early Modern - Industrial - Atomic - Information
I went with this breakdown for game pacing reasons. Like, I don't want the game to feel like it's over before the early modern period, so put it in the first half of the game.

I also think to advance to a new era, you should need to click like a "revolution" or "age up" or "advance" button, that will trigger some event.

the medieval age for example should not be only in name, the medieval empires are different from the Roman empires, ancient Persian in terms of technology, politics, states, territories are much more fragmented, feudal hierarchies, the pope, emperor

 

[Evie]

The Ancient Persian Empire is just as different from the Romans empire as the Roman Empire from medieval European empires, and all of them are very different from Ancient OR Medieval Chinese empires which are just as different from each other, and the Aztec Empire is even more different. Even Charlemagne's empire is significantly different from the late medieval HRE!

Insisting on a specific form of "Medieval Empire" based on European medieval Empires is nonsense.

 

[luca 83]

The Ancient Persian Empire is just as different from the Romans empire as the Roman Empire from medieval European empires, and all of them are very different from Ancient OR Medieval Chinese empires which are just as different from each other, and the Aztec Empire is even more different. Even Charlemagne's empire is significantly different from the late medieval HRE!

Insisting on a specific form of "Medieval Empire" based on European medieval Empires is nonsense.

Of course there are differences between the Aztec empire and the Holy Roman empire, but there are similarities such as the similar feudal system, as in Japan the daimyo similar to the European feudal lords, however one should not simulate the Aztec empire as it was: in civ the Aztecs they can be Muslims and have gunpowder! But simulate. At best, governments, religions, economics, even mixing the elements

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I concluded some time ago that no possible division into Eras, technological or cultural, will not leave out Somebody that somebody else wants to include in the game as a playable Civ. I've already commented on the number of civilizations/regions who didn't follow the technological 'norm', but would also point out that damn few peoples and areas ever went through a cultural 'renaissance' or developed either enlightenment or rational philosophical doctrines on their own.
But, if you are going to discuss the problem, more power to you. Just some comments:

'Protohistorical' is generally taken to mean, in historiography, that a group has no written records of their own, but are mentioned in written records of their neighbors. As examples, the native North Americans and the classical Scythians are Protohistorical when first mentioned by Other Peoples.
To distinguish, 'Prehistorical' means there are no written records contemporary with that group or culture from any source, and so covers Everybody before about 4000 BCE.

'Neolithic' is NOT 'just stone age', it is the last of the 'stone ages' and coincides and overlaps with such very important developments as monumental stonework, agriculture, most animal domestication, walled settlements and cities, evidence of Formal Heirarchy in those cities (and, therefore, social and political organization beyond the family , tribe or clan), organized religion and religious structures, and the earliest Metallurgy and rather sophisticated woodworking. Also evidence for astronomical observation and calendrical measurements, although we are mostly guessing as to all the uses they put these to.

'Industrial' has had a lot of definitions, many now obsolete. It originally was used (back when I was in University, which was nearly Protohistoric) to mean when people began applying artificial power to things, as opposed to human or animal power. That's the obsolete definition, because we now know that water and wind power were applied to 'industrial' processes back in 'classical' times in places as different as Rome, Persia and China (and in at least one specific instance, India). Research was specialized as early as 400 BCE in the Ortygia Workshop in Syracuse and, at least in literary searches and translations of 'scientific' works, by 1000 CE in places like Toledo and Cordoba in Andalusia, and a little later in northern Europe.

I think the best Industrial definition now would be the application of artificial power AND machinery to Production. That is, not just multiple waterwheels with sophisticated gearing, which was available to the Romans and Chinese, but artificial power from water, wind, steam or other sources to drive multi[le machines that mass-produced identical items - the Factory and Mass Production, followed closely by Machine-Made Tools and Parts which allowed precision manufacturing and 'real' Mass Production. These techniques were also applied to the dissemination of knowledge in things like the steam-powered rotary press and, therefore, mass media book and newspaper publishing, which made 'research' virtually universal - it was almost impossible to keep any discovery of any kind local, national, or secret when it could potentially be published and in the hands of millions of people within hours or days.

The sub-division of Industrial into Steam and Combustion is, I think, a little inaccurate: in 1900 only 22% of all the automobiles in the USA were powered by the internal Combustion engine: 40% were by Steam, 38% by Electricity, and it was the advent of cheap and near-universal Electricity that transformed the way everyone did everything. Electrification would be a better 2nd Stage for the Industrial Era.

Just for discussion, here's a set of Eras given non-Europocentric titles and providing for framework for a 500 turn game with approximately equal numbers of turns in each Era:

Neolithic.....60 turns, 100 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 10,000 - 4000 BCE (6000 years)

Ancient ..... 60 turns, 50 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 4,000 - 1000 BCE (3000 years)

Classical ..... 60 turns, 25 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1000 BCE - 500 AD (1500 years)

Post Classical ..... 60 turns, 15 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 500 - 1400 CE (900 years) 60 15

Early Modern ..... 60 turns, 5 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1400 - 1700 CE (300 years)

Modern ..... 70 turns, 3 years/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1700 - 1900 CE (200 years)

Late Modern ..... 70 turns, 1 year/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1900 - 1970 CE (70 years)

Contemporary ..... 60 turns, 1 year/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 1970 - 2030 CE (60 years)

Near Future ..... 30 - 60 turns, 1 year/turn (approximately)
... Real Time: 2030 - 2060 CE (30 years, extendable to 2090 and 60 years if desired)

So in addition to region specific 'Enlightenment' the 'Industrial Era' which can begin eitehr in 1700 or 'Napoleonic' 1800 is wrong huh? . and 'Modern' fits the popularly mislabled 'Enlightenment Era' ??

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So in addition to region specific 'Enlightenment' the 'Industrial Era' which can begin eitehr in 1700 or 'Napoleonic' 1800 is wrong huh? . and 'Modern' fits the popularly mislabled 'Enlightenment Era' ??

It's definitely a less Eurocentric way to label the eras. I personally don't mind using the term Industrial to describe that time period. Using the term "Napoleonic" doesn't make since though as that only lasted 15 years, and definitely would be considered the most region specific.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ That was when France was on the transition stage from The Consulate (Ruled by Three) into the Empire, and in England. Richard Trevitick was testing the first steam powered vehicles. including locomotives for plateways (and later proven the potential limits of that rail system)

 

[pecheneg]

Similarly, I don't give a damn about neolithic or especially prehistoric eras, because oldest "100% state level serious talk civilizations" didn't really come to play before 3000 BC (Egypt, Sumer, Syria, Elam, Indus, Caral)

The problem is that technological development in America and the Old World is extremely out of sync. Karal is not just Neolithic. It is an archaic pre-ceramic Neolithic

Game's scale is too big to simulate decentralized village communities anyway.

As you can see, urban civilization can arise already in the archaic Neolithic. At the same time, the developed Neolithic is both the classic Maya period and ... the Teotihuacan culture. A city with a modest 125 thousand population, "Mesoamerican Rome" with a giant periphery.
This is not counting the strange like Gekebli tepe with an impressive temple complex in the... Mesolithic, BEFORE agriculture and animal husbandry in general.

 

[Evie]

"Similar feudal system", not so much. This reads like an attempt to find similarities where there aren't any. The Aztec were much more in line with tributary empires (conquerors extracting tributes from their conquests) than with any actual feudal system of any sort.

.Changes in how an empire play should come from adopting new government forms, new policies, etc. Not be forced on people due to era changes due to how Europe did it.

 

[SandFli]

As I mentioned, I find this an interesting topic, and one central to a game about playing through time. After many good points raised by all of you here, and the conflicts these highlight, I'm going to lean toward Technology-based Eras/Ages, reached at different times by different Civs, for several reasons (afterall, it is the Tech Tree that the Civilization series Eras reflect):

The Ancient Persian Empire is just as different from the Romans empire as the Roman Empire from medieval European empires, and all of them are very different from Ancient OR Medieval Chinese empires which are just as different from each other, and the Aztec Empire is even more different. Even Charlemagne's empire is significantly different from the late medieval HRE!

Technology (e.g. Stone/Bronze tools), unlike Cultural thought or chronology, cannot differ in interpretation. The difference between having/not having these Era-defining Technologies is archaeologically obvious. Technological 'advances' are also largely applicable to all, regardless of region, and do not tend to go 'backwards' or in very different directions. Either current foundational Tech continues to be used & improved, or a new 'better' Tech replaces it. 'Cultural' eras are not so linear, nor 'correct', in showing objcetive improvement over time; not universally applicable; vary & fluctuate politically/regionally; and cannot be recognized without regional bias.
Returning again to the Medieval 'dark ages' (and admittedly oversimplifying), was this perceived period not determined by the fall of Rome (a Civ) & the rise of the Church (Religion) in Europe, more than forms of Feudalism (Government), Theology (Civic), or Education (Policy), and so could we not argue that some Civilizations of east Asia, Africa, or the Americas, less affected by these factors, were still in -or defined by- an Ancient/Classical era status, during times when Europe was categorised as Medieval/Renaissance/Enlightenment/Industrial. Meanwhile, most Civilizations globally had inarguably advanced technologically to, say, an Era of Bronze, Iron, Gunpowder, or Machinery.
Upon interacting with Technologically 'superior' Civs, others tend to quickly adopt the same Tech (e.g. Hawaii, Iroquois, Japan, etc. upon encountering Guns), which can change alot, fast.
Conversely, 'Cultural' advances are rarely as quickly or universally acquired following such interactions (due to such distinct social complexities as tradition, class, administrative systems, & beliefs).
The 'sociocultural' changes that make an 'Industrial/Modern Era' nation are still, arguably, ongoing for some, yet there's no nation left that does not make use of 'Machine/Information Age' technology. Tech -I'd say- advances faster and affects society in greater magnitude than 'Cultural' changes (at least, in modern history). The jobs, items & lifestyles of many are changed massively by new Technology, while changes of Cultural thought (e.g. Written Records=Ancient era, Philosophy=Classical era) are in the realm of fewer 'thinkers' or 'scholars', and so less constantly & practically applied, and slower to take root, diffuse among classes, or be agreed.

Changes in how an empire play should come from adopting new government forms, new policies, etc. Not be forced on people due to era changes due to how Europe did it.

Factors that define historical 'Cultural eras' (e.g. the Medieval era being focused on -or defined by- Fedualism, Education, or Theology), should be an in-game choice for each player, while Technological eras have less variety of choice (continue using & improving the current base tech, or innovate to reserch the next), so provide a singular, simpler measure of where each Civ comparatively sits in terms of competitive capability (from flint knapping, to virtual worlds & space travel).

Science/Techs seem a way of individually measuring objective advancements (through select Techs & Resources), driving linear & branching mechanics.
Culture/Civics seem suited for uniquely shaping subjective multiple choice challenges (via various Unique Abilities, Civics, Governments, Policies, Specialists, Religions, Ideologies, Great People, Quests, Historic Moments, Traders, Wars, Rebellions, Diplomatic interactions, Dark Ages, Golden Ages, 'We Love The King' Days, Resources & Techs too (!), and still more I'm sure).

I concluded some time ago that no possible division into Eras, technological or cultural, will not leave out Somebody that somebody else wants to include in the game as a playable Civ. I've already commented on the number of civilizations/regions who didn't follow the technological 'norm', but would also point out that damn few peoples and areas ever went through a cultural 'renaissance' or developed either enlightenment or rational philosophical doctrines on their own.

Or... Perhaps you are right, that Eras are effectively impossible, and perhaps need play no more role than a name, if that..
But, for discussion, to your Era suggestions, if they are not 'Eurocentric' (which they aren't), thereby not painting a clear picture of the setting/theming in the mind of the player, then what do the Eras describe, considering the vast regional differences throughout history, other than a general period in which lots of different events happened globally? Only more Wars & Politics. To the player, an Era based on a Technology, at least seperates how things are being done in that period of play, and gives the player an intuition about the corresponding period of their Civ.

 

[Evie]

Stone-bronze-iron are indeed measurable prehistorical (and I must emohasize for clarity, prehistorical, because the whole point of them was to evaluate the technology of a culture solely from archaeology in the absence of written history. So in its proper sense, the iron age ends with the development of writing by a civilization. The idea of an iron age extending into the historical period all the way into a "gunpowder age" doesn't appear to be a common historical conception, more of a gamer/amateur one.

And that's where the idea of a neat little progression up the tech tree from stone to bronze to iron to historical fall apart, because half the world didn't do it that way, China skipped straight from bronze to historical, large parts of Africa from Stone to Iron, and the more we figure out the Mayan glyphs the harder it gets to deny they just plain ignored the two metallic ages and walked right from stone age to historical.

Bronze and iron means more efficent tools and weapons for sure, but complex empires and societies formed at every stage of that periodization. They should make units better and certain actions faster (or in some case possible, although iron for clearing jungles is...questionable), but they shouldn't lead to fundamental gameplay changes either.

 

[Henri Christophe]

About time issue, I support any one who can avoid the terms middle ages or renaisence. Because both is too european to a global game.
Egypt had also it's middle ages, and it was before the classical age of Alexander the Great.
And the renaisence just make sense to Italy.