How would you like civ7 divided into eras?

[Evie]

The renaissance was in no way limited to Italy, but you're right that it wasn't worldwide.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

The Renaissance should be in the game, though as a type of civic or social policy that you would adopt in the Early Modern Era.

Calling an era Medieval to me is fine considering it's one of the best words to describe that long period roughly between c. 500 and 1450 A.D. without calling it something like the Dark Ages or Post-Classical.

 

[Henri Christophe]

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)

As posted by SandFli here, is veryy possible to set a time line without renaiscence or middle ages. We can use the humans tools as Stone Age, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Porcelain Age, Gunpowder Age, Steam Age, Combustion Age and Information Age to divide the time.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

The thread has gotten a bit unwieldy for me at this point I am curious whether it all boils down to preference as initially or if there are underlying rationales I am not catching. For instance, I am wary of the resource-driven, technological era push, though I concede it sounds like it would be successful for the game. The idea that technology is inherently linear seems odd considering periods of regression/stagnation, the loss of knowledge such that earlier artifacts are not inherently obvious to us as to their fashioning or use, and more recently delays in advances and even suppression of knowledge. It seems more intuitive to me to view both technology and culture as largely following the knight's L-shaped move, which is to say, perhaps technological linearity is itself a choice of perspective.

I suspect a lot of the periodizing may owe something to immersion, which is where I would place the Renaissance. A civic or policy as the Companions suggests sounds fine, possibly flavor for European civilizations and leaders. There could also be a sense that the Renaissance as presented in Civ VI is simply inaccurate or even unjust, which I would be inclined to agree with as should be no surprise to anyone here!

I am also curious whether there is an appetite to prioritize the function of eras or if that belongs to another thread. For example, some processes strike me as inherently more dynamic regarding era.

• The Reformation is a good example of an important religious movement that probably should not be fixed. There is no guarantee every game will feature a bloc of Christian powers that will manifest the Reformation in the early modern. Civ VI addresses this primarily by diluting it into the Evangelize Belief function of Apostles for each religion, but it could be interpreted in other ways that are detached from fixed eras.
  
  
• The Enlightenment is also tricky as it can be regarded narrowly as a European movement or more broadly as cultural exchange. Civ VI chooses the narrow option with policies like Rationalism and Liberalism, but we could also treat the Enlightenment as the cultural processing of global contact. It need not be European, nor solely early modern, but could instead happen at different points depending on the map.
  
  A Pangaea map would encounter this process early on as all cultures become aware of another and engage in trade and diplomacy. Any map with semi-isolation like Earth's would have a delayed advent of global relations. Not all cultures would process these encounters with rationalism and imperialism, so it makes sense for the Enlightenment to be more flexible.
  
  
• Industrialization could also be loosened up so that it must happen at some point but is not reserved to a particular era. From my limited familiarity, there seem to be interpretations in favor of the potential for industrialization to have taken off in the Song Dynasty or under the Mughals. We could choose to view industrialization as a less era-dependent process at the expense of a fixed industrial age.

I do think discussion of the function of eras is relevant to clarify what we would would like to get out of them while playing the game. My apologies in advance for any failure in appreciation of discussion so far.

On a side note, I would probably prefer the term Napoleonic as an alternative to Victorian, but neither belongs in broader game eras.

 

[Evie]

Henri - except that those ages are ALSO not universal, and the strict Stone-Bronze-Iron progression is also Euro-and-Middle-Eastern-Centric. The Bronze Age skipped large parts of Africa, China pretty much skipped the Iron Age (they did develop iron tools, but they started being widespread very close to porcelain, and long after the start of the Chinese historical period, so after the Iron Age)., etc, etc.

There is no universal system of eras.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I suspect a lot of the periodizing may owe something to immersion, which is where I would place the Renaissance. A civic or policy as the Companions suggests sounds fine, possibly flavor for European civilizations and leaders. There could also be a sense that the Renaissance as presented in Civ VI is simply inaccurate or even unjust, which I would be inclined to agree with as should be no surprise to anyone here!

Yes, that's exactly how I feel. It just comes down to the name in which they have always used the name "Renaissance" when actually describing the whole technological and cultural advances of the Early Modern Era (c.1450-c.1750 A.D).

Even considering that the Renaissance movement did not leave Europe, they ended in the 1600s which wouldn't cover the whole supposed real world timeline.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I know the bronze age isn't that universal, but still a better way to measure time then renascence.
And some civilization, As Aztecs, should have the obsidian age too, since it's a important tool to then for a long time.
And meso-america has it's own division of time, being pre-classic, classic and pos classic. The classic is the live time of Teotihuacan, pre classic is before Teotihuacan and pos classic is after Teotihuacan.

If each civilization had it's own time line it should be less weird, maybe Japan can have their Meiji era and Zulu the Mfcane.

 

[Evie]

Obsidian is still stone, Henri. And Teotihuacan fell a good century or more before the Mesoamerican Classical ended by most measures.

And better than renaissance (which is why everyone who knows anything calls it Early Modern), but no better than Medieval.

Also, classical and post-classic are used as periodization in large parts of the world, not just Mesoamerica (and they surprisingly overlap a lot). In Europe post-classic = medieval.

 

[SandFli]

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.

100% agree that Tech/Culture/'Knowledge' Trees should be less strictly linear, and allow for branching, skipping, & otherwise acquiring. This way, complex 'Stone/Ancient' Civs can develop, and can jump to, say, ‘Gunpowder’/’Renaissance’ via major changes. Regardless of how eras are represented, more intricate Trees would add a lot more interactivity, strategy, & diversity.

I intentionally attempted an alternative, abstract, Tech-based approach to eras, unrestrained by an 'academically' accepted evaluation and periodization of written records (or lack thereof).
This is because, among other reasons: Techs generally become more complex & fundamentally varied over time (Antiquity did not have computers*, but Modernity still has Religions, Laws, Monarchs, & Democracies); give a relatively objective, open, yet simple measure, while allowing for flexibility (an advanced Stone age Inca may equate to an early Iron age Civ; they are not forced to be ‘Medieval’, 'Early Modern' or 'Renaissance' -nor in such a timeframe- to compete or advance in-game); & immerse the player (I think) no less effectively than 'correctly' named eras (without the typical gamer having to look up their exact meaning). It is to suit indivualized eras for each Civ (for example, Stone-using Civs can coexist at the same time as Gunpowder Civs, while one being Prehistoric/Ancient era & the other in the Renaissance era, at the same time, feels odd).

I accept nothing is perfect. A combination is best, and I like your idea to combine the Trees (& by extension, eras) to include both Science & Culture. I will say that concentrating on Cultural factors over Science (by Civics, Religion, Government, etc.) seem to me to be too variable & subjective to determine universal eras, and do not improve the accuracy of representation of most non-Eurasian and nomadic Civs either. The games calendar could set the era, but this lacks interaction (not player event based) and imagination. As historically accurate as I want Civ to be, it is a game inspired by history, not a simulation that triggers historic events on specific dates, so how much do eras need to align as we each expect of that time?

 

[SandFli]

The thread has gotten a bit unwieldy for me at this point I am curious whether it all boils down to preference as initially or if there are underlying rationales I am not catching.

I am also curious whether there is an appetite to prioritize the function of eras or if that belongs to another thread. For example, some processes strike me as inherently more dynamic regarding era.

I do think discussion of the function of eras is relevant to clarify what we would would like to get out of them while playing the game.

That’s on me, apologies. Although as I entirely agree about the dynamic processes of your exemplary eras, I will add one more quick idea, like that of @bene_legionary & @dagriggstar
Perhaps reworking Historic Moments could represent what defines such dynamic ages? Ages can occur at any relevant point in history/gameplay, occurring at different times for different players. Each age adds unique advantages and challenges for the duration (with scale/magnitude increasing per era). One dynamic age may lead to another, and might influence nearby Civs.

Golden age: caused by numerous, successful, & balanced domestic & international actions. (might incorporate & consolidate the Renaissance/Enlightenment)
Dark age: too little power compared with other Players from losing trade, beliefs, wars, etc.
‘Colonial’ age: greater power over Players by dominating trade, annexing Cities, diplomatic isolation...
Revolutionary age: disagreement with Population creating changes to civic law or challenges of civil war.
Reformative age: too much power over Pop for players making big changes to Beliefs, Government, etc.

Introducing & expanding mechanics throughout keeps the late game fun. Whether this sort of thing should be related to eras, however, is questionable.
Any gameplay role of eras seems important to the wider discussion because, without function (like Civ VI Dark/Golden age cycles), what are eras needed for, or caused by?

If each civilization had it's own time line it should be less weird, maybe Japan can have their Meiji era and Zulu the Mfcane.

Actually, if each Civ (or cultural group of Civs) had one or two unique options per era (replacing repetitive Monumentality & Hic Sunt Dracones), relevant to that period of their history, this could improve simulation elements and still work using the Civ VI Eras & Ages system, using any set of Era titles from this thread.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

My confusion is definitely not the fault of others! Eras lend themselves to multi-system approaches, as should any element of gameplay. Some threads within the thread are starting to make more sense as well. Perhaps rooting the eras in technology is a move away from external fixed periodization to a justification for eras at all. This is a big point of contention for me when thinking of eras: what is their inherent purpose? It makes sense to get rid of the Renaissance as an inaccurate era, but eras need to function through interplay with the rest of the game. These seem to be points we are converging on! I am definitely interested in moving beyond a non-Eurocentric re-skin.

The tech tree presents a very intuitive approach to this. The reward process associated with discovery, deposits, exploitation, applications, and especially combat are fairly well established in at least strategy and management games. I commend the engagement with nonlinearity, skipping, branching, and so on, and am curious how that could come together in-game. Evie's advancement tree is definitely growing on me.

Civilization already has had some of these elements before. Especially in Civ IV there was often a choice in pathways to a tech, and some technologies like Astronomy with requirements but no direct pathway. Similarly, Civ VI could be said to include L-shaped pathways through the eurekas and inspirations linking the tech and civics trees. Beelining can be seen as representing skipping and is a longstanding hallmark of the series. It is easy to have an advanced land army without factories in Civ VI or circumnavigate the globe without bronze working, but it is not possible to launch a spaceship without researching the vast majority of techs. To the extent eras are concerned, one way to measure the skipping component is whether a civilization could reach a late-stage point without x. Governments actually illustrate this pretty well.

There is some ambiguity to tying eras to resources in the gap between knowledge and use, as Evie points out. In my understanding, all of the strategic resources in Civ VI were known or to some extent used by the classical era. Humankind also plays into this, as a side note, by revealing strategics by era, when many deposits were already known prior to industrial/modern exploitation. Resources routinely get attention here (diversity, complexity in discovery/exploitation, and so on) and some abstraction is clearly key.

I think my dynamic eras are probably most closely linked to Boris' earlier singularity events. I imagine those processes I mentioned to be global events that affect all players, rather than individual ages. I like the idea of golden and dark ages but am not sure we have a great model yet. I think fundamentally the player knows when they're winning and when they're losing, hence they don't need an individual age to tell them how they're doing. Individual eras are limited in my opinion by how well they can characterize my gameplay over a given period (liking recognizing colonization) vs. enforcing an artificial narrative. That is more or less the immersion issue.

As for the nature/function of eras, they appear rigid and, like the less successful parts of Civ VI, bloated. There is an individual era, a world era, and then ages from Rise and Fall under the latter. It is not uncommon to snowball by the Medieval Era and even win the game there, precluding 2/3 of the game's eras. Pace and era are out of sync, and the world era is limited in how well it can reflect progress. For me, these issues heavily undermine the immersive function of eras. On a more existential note, if the player is about to conquer the world, why is the world era the Renaissance? If we now can retroactively characterize periods of history, does the player need to know what era they are in while playing?

Now I really want to read the devlogs for eras, ages, and the two trees!

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The renaissance was in no way limited to Italy, but you're right that it wasn't worldwide.

But 'Renaissance' is heavily associated with gunpowder weaponry paricularly guns.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But 'Renaissance' is heavily associated with gunpowder weaponry paricularly guns.

So Gunpowder age is way better than renaissance.

 

[Evie]

The association is wrong. Gunpowder weapons appear in the middle ages, and remain in use long after the renaissance. Their battlefield dominance largely comes after the renaissance, with the early (renaissance) Tercios being primarily pike units with some firearm support.

The Renaissance is also a very short period that often get exxagerated into covering the entire early modern era, which is much wider and where gunpowder is actually an important factor.

Anyone who calls the entire timeframe from the 1400s to the 1700s "renaissance" is clueless.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But 'Renaissance' is heavily associated with gunpowder weaponry paricularly guns.

In Europe yes. But as said above, gunpowder weapons existed before in East Asia where China developed them. The ideas eventually spread to Europe thanks to the Mongols.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The association is wrong. Gunpowder weapons appear in the middle ages, and remain in use long after the renaissance. Their battlefield dominance largely comes after the renaissance, with the early (renaissance) Tercios being primarily pike units with some firearm support.

The Renaissance is also a very short period that often get exxagerated into covering the entire early modern era, which is much wider and where gunpowder is actually an important factor.

Anyone who calls the entire timeframe from the 1400s to the 1700s "renaissance" is clueless.

The "Renaissance" has become a real mess to define. Once upon a time, it started with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, which supposed released a horde of scholars into western Europe with the classical Greek/Roman knowledge that started an Awakening. That is now recognized as a Crock.
The Translation Movement in Cordoba and Toledo started releasing Latin translations of the classical texts into western Europe as far back as 1000 CE (look up Robert Grosseteste, the Oxford scholar who in the 1220s was already quoting Aristotle in his writings and introducing the idea of 'controlled (scientific) experiments' several centuries before Bacon)
By the 1350s, western Europe was already building complex mechanical astronomical clocks, eye glasses, telescopes, using water power extensively in industrial applications, the Venetian Arsenal had introduced the moving assembly line in ship construction, banking and double-entry bookkeeping had been invented in northern Italy, and small wheeled cannon had appeared (1339 - the 'Ribaudequin' originally as a wall defense gun, by 1380 in field battles)
By 1400 such "Renaissance" phenomena as the Bombard wall-smashing cannon, smaller cannon mounted on ships, the new Carrack ship-type, and 'hand cannon' in use by individual troops both mounted and dismounted were becoming common.

The Tercio, the first large permanent military unit with a mixed weapon array of pikes, halberds, arquebus hand guns and, originally, crossbows, doesn't appear until about 1530, but by that time the 'revolution' in art has been going on for almost a century in Italy and has already spread to northern Europe, and the modern configuration of cannon with a trail and long barrel is already over 50 years old. - And note that the Tercio itself is predated by battlefield gunpowder weapons by at least 300 years in China and 200 years in Europe!

Bottom line, the 'Renaissance' was simply a term applied vaguely to a long period of change that had been going on since at least 1000 CE and kept on going and accelerating until the present day.

This alone is reason enough to avoid the term, but it has the added problem in game terms that in order to have a 'Rebirth' or 'Awakening' you have to have been asleep or regressed. In other words, for a Renaissance you almost have to have, by definition, a Dark Age of some kind first, which makes 'Renaissance' not a 'normal' in-game Era, but a circumstance-based occurance in any game . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The "Renaissance" has become a real mess to define. Once upon a time, it started with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, which supposed released a horde of scholars into western Europe with the classical Greek/Roman knowledge that started an Awakening. That is now recognized as a Crock.
The Translation Movement in Cordoba and Toledo started releasing Latin translations of the classical texts into western Europe as far back as 1000 CE (look up Robert Grosseteste, the Oxford scholar who in the 1220s was already quoting Aristotle in his writings and introducing the idea of 'controlled (scientific) experiments' several centuries before Bacon)
By the 1350s, western Europe was already building complex mechanical astronomical clocks, eye glasses, telescopes, using water power extensively in industrial applications, the Venetian Arsenal had introduced the moving assembly line in ship construction, banking and double-entry bookkeeping had been invented in northern Italy, and small wheeled cannon had appeared (1339 - the 'Ribaudequin' originally as a wall defense gun, by 1380 in field battles)
By 1400 such "Renaissance" phenomena as the Bombard wall-smashing cannon, smaller cannon mounted on ships, the new Carrack ship-type, and 'hand cannon' in use by individual troops both mounted and dismounted were becoming common.

The Tercio, the first large permanent military unit with a mixed weapon array of pikes, halberds, arquebus hand guns and, originally, crossbows, doesn't appear until about 1530, but by that time the 'revolution' in art has been going on for almost a century in Italy and has already spread to northern Europe, and the modern configuration of cannon with a trail and long barrel is already over 50 years old. - And note that the Tercio itself is predated by battlefield gunpowder weapons by at least 300 years in China and 200 years in Europe!

About double entry 'T' Accounting with the concept of 'Debit = Credit' which also defined into "Assets=Liabilities (Usually Loans) +Equities (Cashes owned by owner)" when did it first appears and shoud this also counted as a separate technology that leads to or relates to Banking? Is this double entry accounting actually easier for audits and less likely to scam or cheat? when did state agencies adopt T Accountings and when did GAAP first emerged? when did it reaches East Asia?
Also when did the first fieldguns appear as tiller cannons? before or came with bombard?

 

[pecheneg]

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.

1. The problem is that there is no universal use electricity in 1900, either, even in the USA.
2. If we look at the general situation, and not just a local automobiles example, then ...
a) The available capacities are negligible compared to steam.
b). In fact, internal combustion engines began to actively spread EARLIER than electric ones. In 1875, there is already a commercially successful Otto ICE, produced by many hundreds per year. At the same time, the limited commercial use of electric motors in industry is the second half of the 1890s.
c) Practical incandescent lamps with tungsten filament are 1907, the Ford conveyor is 1908. Mass electric lighting is almost synchronous with motorization.

3. It seems to me that it is not worth focusing on the time of technology dissemination (including relative, in relation to other technologies), and not on the time of invention of practically successful samples at all.

Firstly, the spread of technologies does not occur within the framework of the logic of the "tree" - scaling costs play a huge role. Relatively speaking, a cinema costs much less than a metallurgical plant or a railway. The result is a bit predictable

Secondly, we get into a dead end of estimating the spread. If we focus on the global situation, then, for example, the vast majority of the world has experienced industrialization with a giant delay. Even industrial metallurgy spread globally closer to the 1960s.
If we limit ourselves to the framework of "North America + Western Europe", then there will still be a gap of decades. So, if we compare the indicators of motorization, telephony, electrification of the USA and Europe in the first decades of the twentieth century, the result will be impressive. If we focus on the most advanced country, then in the 17th century we will get Holland with a population of 3 million as a reference.
However, here the problem is solved by abandoning the rigid chronological framework.

Thirdly, the spread of technology is associated with a bunch of "external" factors – GMOs are not the first and obviously not the last technology here.
Fourth, the focus on distribution contradicts the logic of the game. The player invests in RESEARCH and decides for HIMSELF how widely to apply the technology.

4. If we return to the problem of the "main technology" of the second half of the 19th - early twentieth century, then it is easiest to focus on the the "official" version
The invention of the converter is officially considered the start of the "second industrial revolution". In 1856. As a result of the development of innovation, steel production increased twenty-fold between 1870 and 1900. And that, in general, shaped the world as we know it. Starting with the really massive spread of steam engines and really large-scale railway construction.
That is, simply inventing a steam engine and a steam locomotive is far from enough for a radical change in the economic model. 50 years after Watt's invention (1826), the total power of steam engines in England reached only 80 thousand horsepower. Railways in England were built at an average rate of 550 km per year. In general, as economists of the 1980s noticed, early steam produced a lot of smoke, but little large-scale impact on statistics.
At the same time, if the fact of the commercial use of steam is important, then you need to start not with Watt, but with Severi (1698). In general, we can single out about a 160-year period when steam is already being used, but in general the Renaissance energy still dominates, while there are large-scale shifts in the economy, but they are mainly associated with the revolution in light industry, the agrarian revolution, etc.
And then Bessemer came..
At the same time, right next to it, for example, the invention of the technology for producing paper from wood (1859), the first kerosene plant, the first plastic (1855), etc. Meanwhile, thanks to "wooden" paper, the cost of cheap books and newspapers in the second half of the 19th century fell fourfold. As an obvious result, education has become cheaper, the circulation of the same British press has quickly grown to tens of thousands. I don't think it's worth explaining how this affected the mass consciousness either.
Then, within a short period of time, a practical dynamo and an internal combustion engine were invented. The fourth system–forming innovation (conveyor in line production) is 1882.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I see a lot of talk about when someting was invented or started to be implemented (mainly techs) to define an Era, but at least for me its more usefull to think about their middle point to characterize each period in terms of gameplay. For example:
- Medieval Era related to Gunpowder: Yes gunpowder was invented in medieval China and implemented in warfare in most of Eurasia and North Africa in the later centuries of medieval time. But, when medieval age covers close to one thousand years in most of its definitions we must look to what was closer to their middle point, then the units and techs that would be characteristic are those generalized around the year 1000.
Despite this, still would be possible to get techs and units (etc.) labeled* for the next era if you can affort it, this way some civ could still get Bombards in Medieval Era if they invest in it like China did.

Also I dont think name Eras based on a specific tech is good for both historical and gameplay reasons. I like the model that allow you to advance to the next era when you have most (90%?) of the techs of the current era and/or some of the next one (10%?) that way we can have civs with an "irregular" set of techs like the historical Mesoamerica. But would not be weird to have Bronze or Iron Era civs without these specific techs? Ancient and Classical would be more flexible to relate a different development.

Eras are a key element to base and clarify the gameplay rules and mechanics in a serie that is very boardgame like. Add flexibility for less "eurocentrict" development could be done without complety replace these eras with a complex simulator like system.

 

[Evie]

By that standard the renaissance isn't a gunpowder era either. Cannons were probably reasonably widespread by the mid renaissance, but the common use of firearms-equipped troops is more very late 1500s (very end of Renaissance, or past it) to early 1600s (post-Renaissance) than 1400-1500.

Unless you cling to the fiction that is a Renaissance lasting into the Industrial era, in ehich case what you have isn't so much Eurocentrist as a fantasy novel.