[Mod Potential] An era between Renaissance and Industrial Eras.

Should there be an era between Renaissance and Industrial Eras?

  • A) Yes, The name should be 'The Enlightenment Era'

    Votes: 9 90.0%
  • B) Yes, The name should be 'Imperial Era'

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • C) Yes, The name should be 'Early Modern Era'

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • D) No!

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Total voters
    10
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,840
1. Should there be an era between Renaissance and Industrial Eras?
2. If so what should be the name
3. if you support an era between the existing two in (1) then what are techs and civics (either new or existing) assigned to this era? And in case that technologies and civics had been relocated to this era. what should techs and civic rosters of the two existing eras be?


If not. what's your reasons why shouldn't there be?
 
Originally I would have been for it but now I'm not so sure we need it, making the game even longer now that we have the Future Era.

I'd rather the Renaissance Era named be changed to Early Modern Era, and rename the Humanism civic to Renaissance.
 
^ So in addition to the game lenght. Why do you oppose an era between Renaissance and Industrial now?
Having one more or less era affects unit roster as well. I don't really agree with existing Civ6 unit rosters and how Firaxis sorts units order. particularly Bombard appears AFTER musketmen while in truth it is other way around. With Industrial Era begins by the time of Louis XIV "The Sun King". it means alot to modding. particularly whether should Line Infantry or Rifleman chosen for 'Melee/Anticavalry/ "Gunpowder or Infantry" class (my mod project (a WIP, the second version) have 'Infantry' class which the first unit is Pike and Shot, upgradeable by upgrading Melee or Anticav choices.
 
^ So in addition to the game lenght. Why do you oppose an era between Renaissance and Industrial now?
I think the name Early Modern would work well in encompassing both aspects of what the Renaissance and the Enlightenment eras would be compared to making two separate eras.
The way it works in game the "Renaissance Era" represents the Early Modern period anyway all the way up to Industrialization. Of course I'd be fine with making an Enlightenment Era if the name Renaissance did stay, but I'd prefer my way more.

Having one more or less era affects unit roster as well. I don't really agree with existing Civ6 unit rosters and how Firaxis sorts units order. particularly Bombard appears AFTER musketmen while in truth it is other way around. With Industrial Era begins by the time of Louis XIV "The Sun King". it means alot to modding. particularly whether should Line Infantry or Rifleman chosen for 'Melee/Anticavalry/ "Gunpowder or Infantry" class (my mod project (a WIP, the second version) have 'Infantry' class which the first unit is Pike and Shot, upgradeable by upgrading Melee or Anticav choices.
I'm personally fine with the way the unit roster in the game works.
I'm not sure what can be done about Bombard other than making it unlock at Gunpowder too or let military engineering go into both gunpowder and metal casting. Also Louis the XIV was not alive whenever the Industrial Era started. Louis XVII definitely was though. :mischief:
 
mmm Firaxis defined the beginning of the Industrial Era as the late Louis XIV reign. which we known that it's sorely incorrect.
Where did they define it as there? In the civilopedia?
 
^ Nah, the gameplay terms implied that Industrial Era began there. didn't you try beginning a game in Industrial era and report a year AD it shows up please :)
Okay. That's weird but I guess it makes sense from a gameplay perspective, even if it's historically inaccurate.
I've only played games starting from the beginning in the Ancient Era at 4000 B.C.
 
Yes, I think the game really needs it. Jumping from the renessaince to the industrial era is a bit crazy. I also think there should be another era between the classical and the medieval era.
 
Back
Top Bottom