Where'd everyone go?
Quick little opinion essay, which may or may not spark discussion:
What is your favorite era of warfare in RI, and why?
One of the great strengths of this mod, in my view, is the way that the historically significant strategic and tactical aspects of each era of warfare are so compellingly represented through the mechanics of the vanilla game, which overtly blend both. Moreso than in the base game, for instance, a dearth of actual, manufactured hard steel is a death sentence in the industrial, fueling colonial ambitions and the quest for iron and coal while this is anticipated; while likewise, acquiring early axemen via an idyllic source of copper in the early game may easily win you a prime foreign capital location, but also offers a siren song of overextension in lieu of one, where mature institutions of governance are nonexistent. Throughout each time period, it simply "feels" very much like the history it echoes, in my experience playing this mod for a handful of years now. For that alone, all of them are interesting I find, but from that vantage blended with the actual gameplay experience, I feel that I can rank the ones that stand out to me:
Extremely Fun:
- The beginning of the modern era/end of the industrial era, i.e., approximately the latter half of World War 2 and the opening phase of the historical Cold War. For some reason (and I suspect this may be more subjective than not), this is such an exciting part of the game for me. In sheerly mechanical terms, several more layers of warfare are broached which didn't previously exist (and in RI are given greater significance) such as the intercept/evade chances which weren't a thing at all in vanilla BtS, and the scope of one's navy and air force in that context as a backdrop of
any military power projection in lieu of them, paratroopers, guided missiles, your power grid, and all of the strategic implications surrounding nuclear weapons, as well as the arms race towards acquiring them. This, I feel, really makes

start to feel comparably important to

, as military technology reaches a game-winnable maturity, and stealing that or interrupting home-stretch projects like spaceship parts becomes an increasingly attractive alternative. There's also just something about the "this is it" feel of the period, and how much can happen in such a short time, which I think crowns this era as the most exciting period of warfare in the game for me.
Notably Exciting:
- The late medieval and the beginning of the renaissance. Here, you have a fascinating
blend of both the maturity of high

melee, and the experimental phase of what will eventually obsolete it, but is as-yet only situationally its better; the beginning of ranged attacks with bombards and the first ocean-going ships. I am biased since this is one of my favorite periods of actual history, so its compelling representation in the game is inherently more fun to me for that. The previous earlier medieval era, as well, is a lot more static militarily with castles and longbows making cities sturdy strongholds and heavy cavalry ill-suited against them but dominant in the field against invaders, which the arrival of bombards swings majorly in favor of the offensive once again unto viability, but not clearly to the point of outright unseating a strong defender. I love the sense of dynamism and the upheaval it invites!

More than any other era, this one feels especially eclectic with the roles and unit types involved; all in their way effective, but nuanced, and I also feel that this is a time period where the most civs' individual flavors shine most brightly, both in strategic and aesthetic terms.
Consistently Piques Interest:
- The ancient era. This one benefits from the most playtesting and feedback, being at the very start, and I find its balance fascinating and satisfying. This is also, essentially, the primary era in which your adversary is "The Barbs" - and the war against them can be gruesome, and certainly has its own unique flavor. This era also benefits the most, I think, from a perceived reward from improvement, since your first "strong" unit simply boasts of not being almost worthless, such that when you
do get units requiring strategic resources, they feel very potent and influential against your still neolithic opponents, in a way which is less immediately visible later on. The feeling of making do with the extremely primitive against the largest opportunity costs has a unique appeal.
Feels Kind of Standard:
- The late classical, early and high medieval eras. While this era (as they all are) is fun, it feels the most "sticky" and unnuanced, where most units have a very long shelf-life with glacial depreciation from their debut to their true obsolescence. (For instance, a cataphract is indeed quite powerful at around historical 1AD, but it also remains sturdy and viable up through the early renaissance, especially if promoted through success during this whole swathe of time.) With the late medieval, most of these units are finally outclassed categorically, but only after several hundred turns of feeling almost interchangeably effective with little sensitivity to new technology. Also, the arrival of often quite decent irregulars at the same time that

becomes much more abundant means that even strategic resources have a somewhat stilted bearing on military viability. Admittedly, military technology
was more or less static for a long stretch of time during this era, but it doesn't make for particularly exciting gameplay, at least compared to the other eras' unique trends.
(On Land) Feels Like a One-Trick Horse, Almost:
- Preindustrial "Enlightenment" Renaissance, since line and light infantry are basically trump cards over everything preceding them and on par with themselves, and also face pretty steep obstacles to their own upgrades in the maturity of industrialization, the combat of this era feels rather binary and "sticky": either one has the "winning" flintlock infantry units and then warfare becomes an economic question of

capacity, or they don't and they will be absolutely annihilated by the adversary that does. The naval question is more interesting, as this is when the Age of Sail reaches an effervescence which its debut into ocean-going technology only hinted at, but on land, the "rock, paper, scissors" of Civ IV's combat mechanics dissolves for the most part when everyone is fighting with the same weapons. A possible exception could be named with the cavalry, which as more of an interesting progression during this time period (with pistoleers yielding to both cuirassiers and hussars), but in both cases, for purposes of conquest cavalry isn't the primary arm anyway. With artillery, bombards become cannons in this era, which isn't insignificant, but I don't feel that it even remotely tips the scale in the field between the dominance of line infantry over earlier units, and in siege, only means a couple of turns' difference in defense reduction.