How would you like civ7 divided into eras?

[Patine]

If you are playing as Aztecs you can divided the time as pre classic, classic, pos classic, colonization and republic.

Which wouldn't actually be how the Aztecs divided things, as they effectively missed out, as late-comers, on the Pre-Classic and Classic Eras of Mesoamerica, and never had a, "Republican," Era.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If you are playing as Aztecs you can divided the time as pre classic, classic, pos classic, colonization and republic.

I'm guessing you are combining Aztec and Mexico as a singular civilization again?

 

[Patine]

I'm guessing you are combining Aztec and Mexico as a singular civilization again?

And probably going back to a direct Toltec legacy, too, if Pre-Classical and Classical are mentioned.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I'm guessing you are combining Aztec and Mexico as a singular civilization again?

Yes, I guess this time line fit well to all Mesoamerican civs. I know the Aztecs as we know just live around the pos classic, but for a game prupose it needs more subdivisions.

 

[Evie]

I have been thinking some form of age of exploration/discovery might actually be a middle ground between the regionalist renaissance and the bland Early Modern era for the 1400-1700-ish era. While still a generally European era, it's not exclusively so (China had its great naval journeys in a similar era, if short lived and limited to Indonesia, South Asia and Africa, and even Japan launched a trans-Pacific voyage in the period). Moreover, because Europe's actions reached around the world (colonization) the era impacted people in nearly the whole planet (cf, Henri's colonial era) which makes it arguably the first global era in the sense that it happened everywhere)

 

[Henri Christophe]

And probably going back to a direct Toltec legacy, too, if Pre-Classical and Classical are mentioned.

Actually, Toltec is also a pos classic period. The classical period is a reference to Teotihuacan, and pre classical is backing the Olmec times.

I have been thinking some form of age of exploration/discovery might actually be a middle ground between the regionalist renaissance and the bland Early Modern era for the 1400-1700-ish era. While still a generally European era, it's not exclusively so (China had its great naval journeys in a similar era, if short lived and limited to Indonesia, South Asia and Africa, and even Japan launched a trans-Pacific voyage in the period). Moreover, because Europe's actions reached around the world (colonization) the era impacted people in nearly the whole planet (cf, Henri's colonial era) which makes it arguably the first global era in the sense that it happened everywhere)

Yeah, colonial era is the first era to be global and are speaking of a global history. Since Europeans actually colonized every continent on earth.
Before colonial age we every look somewhere especific to draw the time line, like the MIddle East-European history of Bronze age, middle ages and renaiscence, what I think civ 7 can avoid some names in the time line. Or making certain civs with a special time line to fit better it's history.

 

[Patine]

Yeah, colonial era is the first era to be global and are speaking of a global history. Since Europeans actually colonized every continent on earth.

Well, to be pedantic, Antarctica wasn't even reached by land until the 19th Century (significantly after the, "Colonial Age,"), and still hasn't been permanently, "colonized."

 

[Evie]

I'd take exploration/discovery over colonization because while all three refer largely to European activities, Exploration/Discovery have some application outside Europe, and far more regions were explored than colonized by Europeans in that period (at the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750-1800, only South/Central Americas and Mexico, a minority of North America, and the Philippines and East Indies were colonized, pretty much)

 

[Patine]

I'd take exploration/discovery over colonization because while all three refer largely to European activities, Exploration/Discovery have some application outside Europe, and far more regions were explored than colonized by Europeans in that period (at the start of the Industrial Revolution around 1750-1800, only South/Central Americas and Mexico, a minority of North America, and the Philippines and East Indies were colonized, pretty much)

And the Cape of Good Hope, but yes, this is a valid point.

 

[pecheneg]

The association is wrong. Gunpowder weapons appear in the middle ages,

OK, historical background, the beginning.

1. Gunpowder did not appear in medieval Europe. It was imported into the European Middle Ages from a much more developed region.

2. At the same time, in any civilization there is always a set of high-tech, which is unsuitable for mass replication or / and significant use due to limited efficiency, high cost, etc. As an extreme case, breech-loading and magazine rifles (with lever reloading, almost "Winchester"), breech-loading guns with a wedge bolt, oblong projectiles with remote detonation, revolvers, etc. appeared in the 16th and 17th centuries. Quite a glamorous look and clearly not the first revolver – this is the 1580s, "Winchesters" - the 1630s. Moreover, even magazine guns were rare weapons, but not an isolated one.

However, it's still exotic. A much more illustrative example: rifled weapons, invented in the 1490s, generally had a limited presence in the army for a very long time, but in noticeable numbers and constantly.

In general, recklessly using the logic of "it has already existed", we can assume that nothing new has appeared since the 1630s and before the invention of the machine gun. Although ... there is information about a certain English patent for using the energy of powder gases for recharging - the 17th century, yes. In general, only aviation, only hardcore.

That is, it is necessary to distinguish between phases 1. ideas, 2. experimental single samples, 3. limited and not seriously affecting production, and 4. the appearance of "practical" samples. Which, after distribution and testing of the application, have a significant impact on the situation. In the case of interest to us - on the course of hostilities.

So the effectiveness of the use of gunpowder in the Middle Ages and after 1440-1450 was very different. In reality, the conditional "renaissance" is the era of dominance of a very specific gunpowder weapon. At the same time, you clearly underestimate the "small" problems of gunpowder technologies of the 14th - first half of the 15th centuries.

Let's say another 1400 is

1. non-granulated gunpowder (powder pulp) with all its funny features. It is a) inconvenient when charging b) hygroscopic and had to be constantly dried, risking being blown up in the process. Moreover, the ideal control of dampness is difficult and the characteristics of the pulp "crawl". But these are minor drawbacks against the background of the fact that it has disgusting ballistic characteristics and therefore a large and expensive pile of rapidly dampening gunpowder is needed (almost twice as much as granulated). And even in dry form, the characteristics of the pulp are unstable – the strength of the shot depends on how optimally it is rammed. Too tight and not tight enough = the strongest deviations in the power of the shot. In general, when shooting with an accuracy slightly higher than "that way", there is no such thing as a rate of fire at all. Even if there is time for accurate shooting, a very high qualification and a "real" gunner is required - one for a dozen guns. With the slightest lack of qualification, the accuracy drops outrageously.

2. All guns that look like artillery, not an enlarged "hand cannon", shoot mostly stone cores. In other words, these are a) time-consuming ammunition to manufacture b) with low strength c) a very poor diameter-to-weight ratio. B and C require a large caliber, which... provides rapid braking in the air. Which requires an even larger caliber to preserve the impact force.

3. At the same time, the guns of 1400, except for small ones, are forged from iron strips. That is, in the first approximation, the gun will be either flimsy and short-range, or very heavy. That's all, you can forget about normal field artillery. What could maneuver has a negligible firing range.

4. However, in any case, there are no normal carriages ... either. As a result, about the same thing is put on the wheels that exists in the portable version. At the same time, the price of the issue turns out to be ineffective guidance - by tilting the entire carriage. An alternative option is to put a slightly larger cannon on a "very mobile and passable" wagons.

5. At the same time, the problem of sieges is not only that a suitable cannon will be very heavy and not long-range. The problem is that the tool forged from iron strips at that time cannot be made both durable and large enough. The bombard of 1400, often with a huge caliber, is the so-called bombard-mortar, 3-4 of its own caliber in length. With efficiency against high-quality fortifications, everything is very bad.

Now let's look at the handgun. There are already shooting things on sticks, but…

1. The gun lock has not yet been invented. One hand is occupied with a fuse when firing, and SUDDENLY it is impossible to hold a weapon and aim with two hands. As a result, "manual guns" are either low-power, or require four hands (a "crew" of two people), or not very manual, because they require shooting from a stop. In other words, at least some powerful individual weapons can be used mainly from stationary or semi-stationary positions of the "Hussite cart" type.

2. We have the same powder pulp, which is especially fun to hammer a long barrel of small caliber.

As a result, an individual firearm looks like a cheap ersatz crossbow. As a result, until the middle of the 15th century
1. rare hand guns in field armies were lost in the crowd of crossbowmen. If there are any at all. Already in 1432, in advanced Italy, a rich city hires a condottiere... and there are zero handgunners in the squad with the same crowd of crossbowmen. For comparison, in 1482 (the age of the arquebus), following the results of another war, Milan exposes crossbowmen to the door, replacing them with firearms infantry.
2. and next to the bombards, throwing machines are quite thriving.

 

[Evie]

Yes, it's almost like I also wrote that handguns didn't become battlefield dominant until around the end of the Renaissance. Which you also wrote a novel about, mostly centered on the fact that you...seem to push the end of the Renaissance into the 1600s, which I utterly disagree with.

Around 1500, the midpoint of the 1400-1600 period, guns had begun replacing crossbows, but still represented a small overall fraction of armies. It's only very toward the very late renaissance/sixteenth century that firearms attain a 1:1 ratio with melee weapons, with true dominance (= being the most common weapon) coming in the 17th century until the all-firearms armies of the 18th. Polesrms remained the dominant battlefield weapon to that point.

While it's certainly true that firearms became practical and then more prevalent in the Renaissance, the Renaissance as an age of firearms is a popular culture exaggeration (like most things about the renaissance, which wasn't nearly so much the great age of progress nineteenth century historians made it to be). Theynwere neither invented nor dominant in that period.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The best part of use Discovery/Colonial Era and Industrial Era is that these names are gameplay informative.

- Colonial Era: Get access to previously inaccessible continents, where you have more land to found cities, minor factions to conquer and new exotic resources to trade.
- Industrial Era: Fast grow and urbanization, the new industial districts and rail networks (workshops would be part of early neighborhoods).

There are others eras like Ideological Era (rise and conflict between socio-economic ideologies) for early 20th century, and Devotional Era (about loyalty to dynasties and organized religions) instead of Medieval.

 

[Evie]

Can we *not* just make up eras? I'm sorry, but devotional era feels completely out of place to me. Age of Discovery/Exploration, Colonial Era, these are real terms used to describe certain movement, developments of periods in history even if they're not global eras. They have historical meaning.

Devotional era is a term you made up because you don't like medieval.

 

[pecheneg]

Yes, it's almost like I also wrote that handguns didn't become battlefield dominant until around the end of the Renaissance.

You are wrong, which will be the third part of the reference. While I am describing the horrors of the medieval firearms, everything will change very soon.

Which you also wrote a novel about, mostly centered on the fact that you...seem to push the end of the Renaissance into the 1600s, which I utterly disagree with.

The author of the term (Michelet) himself attributed its end to... 1650. At the same time, the short version – according to the 1590th is marked as "one Roman architect in 1590 broke with mannerism and invented the Baroque." In general, the end dates (as well as the beginning) are creeping, but the 1620s are present steadily. Many obviously Renaissance figures did not have time to die urgently at the moment of the architect's break with mannerism. As a result, the Wikipedia article on the Venetian Renaissance ends in 1623, for example. At the same time, the 1620s are marked by such a modest event as the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648).

Around 1500, the midpoint of the 1400-1600 period, guns had begun replacing crossbows,

Hmm. In fact, around 1500, the displacement in the advanced armies has already been completed. Moreover, if the wishes of the military coincided with the financial possibilities, this would have happened even earlier.

For example, in 1473-74. crossbowmen and culveriners in the Burgundian infantry "spear" (squad of 6 people) two by two. At the same time, back in 1471, the desired composition of the Burgundian army was approved. The crossbowmen there are only mounted – there is no wheel lock yet, and matchlocks are very dubious weapons for a cavalryman.

Milan in 1482 had 233 crossbowmen, 352 arquebusiers and 1,250 soldiers with petrinals. At the same time, as I said above, the crossbowmen were "dismissed" almost at the same time.
Here it must be borne in mind that this is already the era of granular gunpowder and even hand guns have greatly increased in power. At the same time, the petrinal was a short "hand cannon" in the first half of the 15th century, but in the 16th century, a short rifle with a wheel lock was already called that. For 1482, only one thing is certain – this thing was short.
The only serious army in which crossbowmen held out until the 1520s was the French. And they kept on reflexive disregard for the infantry.

Around 1500, the midpoint of the 1400-1600 period, guns had begun replacing crossbows, but still represented a small overall fraction of armies. It's only very toward the very late renaissance/sixteenth century that firearms attain a 1:1 ratio with melee weapons, with true dominance (= being the most common weapon) coming in the 17th century until the all-firearms armies of the 18th. Polesrms remained the dominant battlefield weapon to that point.

I repeat – infantrymen with assault rifle still make up the largest part of the army, and machine gunners were a miserable minority both in 1914 and now. Even the French had 26% of gunners even in 1918. Tankers in 1940… At the same time, the matter is not limited to the era of firepower – the marginal estimate of William's cavalry share in the Battle of Hastings is 30%. Hand–to-hand infantry dominates even among the Normans, so infantry is the decisive force. Harold has more infantry, if the armies are approximately equal in number – twice. Harold certainly won…
In general, this is not how it works.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Can we *not* just make up eras? I'm sorry, but devotional era feels completely out of place to me. Age of Discovery/Exploration, Colonial Era, these are real terms used to describe certain movement, developments of periods in history even if they're not global eras. They have historical meaning.

Recognition.
Beyond be formally defined, broadly and deeply acepted, names like Ancient, Classical, Medieval and Modern are poorly descriptive of any technological or social movement, inconsistent and even anachoronistic. Eras could well be named First, Second and Third, or Early Recent and Post-Intermediate instead.

Devotional era is a term you made up because you don't like medieval.

The thread itself is about how someone would like eras, so. By the way, you are wrong, all my alternate options for Medieval options have a reason beyond dont like Medieval:
- Late Classical, as a result of a consistent system where Early Modern fit I turned "Post-Classical" into "Late-Classical"
- Devotional, to have all eras named as adjectives that denote some characteristic element of the time period manifested as gameplay era mechanics.

I am neutral to Medieval (also Renaissance by the way) in a thread where other people have questioned it for being eurocentric. CIV have eurocentric techs, civics and units sequences, notoriously more civs, city states, districts, wonders and great peoples from western world, "rock stars", religious mechanics that are christian (muslim by similarity) based, even in resources we lack any that wasnt relevant for western history. The game use western history names and dates to determine eras, so I dont expect devs to use anything different from Medieval/Middle Age.

 

[Evie]

Recognition matters. In fact, I would go as far as to say that the entire point of eras is recognition, allowing the player to track roughly where their civilization is in history, if not from a time period they already know about, at least from one they can see is a widely understood historical period (eg, early modern), and readily associate with an actual time period in history. Without that, there is very little mechanical purpose to having reason to have eras in the game.

So to me devotional goes against the point of having eras at all. It has no recognition value, and its definition would exist strictly and exclusively within the Civilopedia - while you Google "Devotional Era" you get Depeche Mode links.

Honestly unlike renaissance, I'm not particularly gung-ho about not having medieval. While the term originates in Europe, and its etymology is dubious, it's been used and applied to so many other places (Medieval Africa, Medieval China, Medieval Japan) to refer to the post-classical (Mesoamerica is the one place where the post-classical is not routinely called Medieval, and the Mesoamerican post-classical is pretty medieval anyway) that it works well enough. It and post-classical (not late classical, which generally correlates to late antiquity and means a time period earlier than medieval/post-classical - again, recognition matters.

Renaissance is the one that has to go and while Early Modern is the correct scholarly term I'm increasingly leaning toward Discovery/Exploration as the compromise candidate that's both recognizable, uniquely named, and has broader appeal than Renaissance.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

There are others eras like Ideological Era (rise and conflict between socio-economic ideologies) for early 20th century, and Devotional Era (about loyalty to dynasties and organized religions) instead of Medieval.

Wouldn't having an Ideological Era be considered a Devotional Era as well?

Honestly unlike renaissance, I'm not particularly gung-ho about not having medieval. While the term originates in Europe, and its etymology is dubious, it's been used and applied to so many other places (Medieval Africa, Medieval China, Medieval Japan) to refer to the post-classical (Mesoamerica is the one place where the post-classical is not routinely called Medieval, and the Mesoamerican post-classical is pretty medieval anyway) that it works well enough. It and post-classical (not late classical, which generally correlates to late antiquity and means a time period earlier than medieval/post-classical - again, recognition matters.

Renaissance is the one that has to go and while Early Modern is the correct scholarly term I'm increasingly leaning toward Discovery/Exploration as the compromise candidate that's both recognizable, uniquely named, and has broader appeal than Renaissance.

I feel the same way. I'd still rather the name be Early Modern, considering that term is actually used by historians to describe that era, but calling it the Exploration/Discovery Era wouldn't be bad either. Calling it Discovery would still coincide with the discoveries of the Renaissance, Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment as well.

 

[GeneralZift]

I much prefer Exploration Era over Early Modern. If the naming means so much to you. Actually makes more sense than Renaissance and is more recognisable than Early Modern.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I much prefer Exploration Era over Early Modern. If the naming means so much to you. Actually makes more sense than Renaissance and is more recognisable than Early Modern.

Early Modern era is really a bad name, even I would prefer renascence over early modern era. But exploration, or colonization, are better names to this early modern era. Maybe exploration be even better than colonization, since exploration sounds less violent then colonization.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Personally, the term Early Modern evokes a sense of global possibility and opportunities. It is an era where discovery should be happening, where global empires should be emerging. How that happens in-game probably should be exciting/anxiety-inducing as well. Enlightenment could work if we accepted the Age of Discovery may not inherently lead to rationalism and empiricism.

Modernity is an interesting concept. Read about it, experience it, viscerally oppose it, as you like--it is clearly animating discussion already! One reason for its relevance to eras: it is more inclusive than the Renaissance in suggesting any civilization could contribute to the Modern Era.