Starting Date too early?
- Thread starter DanielF
- Start date
AmericanGeneral
Chieftain
maybe they just get ahead of you...its not the game causing that, its your play.
Cuivienen
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2003
- Messages
- 8,011
That's not what he means, he means that everyone (himself included) reaches the Modern Ages sometime around the 1400s-1500s, which is what normally happens in levels higher than Warlord/Regent.
Personally, it doesn't bother me, but it is strange that, starting in about 500 BC game-time, the game accelerates past the actual rate of history. On the other hand, simulating the stagnation of the Middle Ages is very difficult in-game, and research does not slow at all during the MA. Perhaps research costs should be much higher in the early- and mid- MA than in the AA and late MA.
Personally, it doesn't bother me, but it is strange that, starting in about 500 BC game-time, the game accelerates past the actual rate of history. On the other hand, simulating the stagnation of the Middle Ages is very difficult in-game, and research does not slow at all during the MA. Perhaps research costs should be much higher in the early- and mid- MA than in the AA and late MA.
Accelerated production is partly to blame for that. But I agree, MA really doesn't last long enough. Heh, maybe if the 'Plague' were part of the epic game, we wouldn't have to worry about that.
But historically speaking, we probably COULD have been in the modern age during the 1400's if scientific research was accepted instead of being called blasphemy. Heck we know the Chineese had gunpowder long, LONG ago, but never bothered to develop it since they didn't believe in 'science'.
Heh.
But historically speaking, we probably COULD have been in the modern age during the 1400's if scientific research was accepted instead of being called blasphemy. Heck we know the Chineese had gunpowder long, LONG ago, but never bothered to develop it since they didn't believe in 'science'.
Heh.
Maybe people did consider themselves 'modern' in the 1400s (sorry, couldn't resist)!
Anyway, the ages are offset by the AI's rapid research and trade, and if you keep up with them you will also be in the Modern Age when you should be in the Middle Ages if it were real life.
Anyway, the ages are offset by the AI's rapid research and trade, and if you keep up with them you will also be in the Modern Age when you should be in the Middle Ages if it were real life.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
In terms of Western civilization, all I can say is that in real history, we had the fall of Rome to blame for setting us back for so long. Though the Middle Ages weren't quite as stagnant and ignorant a time as people generally believe, it nevertheless is true that it took us several centuries to really start advancing again. I daresay that if Rome had remained a powerful empire, scientific advancement would have continued in Europe and we would have reached a similar level to what we have much sooner.
The problem with the game, of course, is that nothing like that happens. Empires don't rise and fall throughout the course of the game. Everyone starts at the same time, and it's more like a grand foot-race to the finish line. Even if one civ is taken out, the only people that suffer are that specific civ. Scientific advancement continues unabated for everyone else. The only thing I could think of that would slow down advancement to make the era better match the year, if you will, would be to program in some kind of model for the fall of empires leading to stagnation. But that would probably be more of a burden and would make it less fun to actually play.
The problem with the game, of course, is that nothing like that happens. Empires don't rise and fall throughout the course of the game. Everyone starts at the same time, and it's more like a grand foot-race to the finish line. Even if one civ is taken out, the only people that suffer are that specific civ. Scientific advancement continues unabated for everyone else. The only thing I could think of that would slow down advancement to make the era better match the year, if you will, would be to program in some kind of model for the fall of empires leading to stagnation. But that would probably be more of a burden and would make it less fun to actually play.
I modified mine to be 3750 BC, which appears to have helped it out a great bit. (I tried 3000 once and it was 2777 when I built the UN, on regent. 
)
)Revolutionary
Anarchy!
The Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations began around 5,000 BC, so one can argue that the starting date is too late 
But I do agree with you that in the higher levels tech advancement is very fast, I remember in one game in demi-god playing as the Incas on a huge pangea map I got to the industrial age in the 700s AD
@Kiech thats not true the Chinese didn't develop gunpowder any further simply because they didn't need to at the time, it had nothing to do with there beliefs, the Chinese didn't have a repressive anti-science religion that was only specific to some areas in the west, the Chinese had a society that promoted scientic progress
But I do agree with you that in the higher levels tech advancement is very fast, I remember in one game in demi-god playing as the Incas on a huge pangea map I got to the industrial age in the 700s AD
@Kiech thats not true the Chinese didn't develop gunpowder any further simply because they didn't need to at the time, it had nothing to do with there beliefs, the Chinese didn't have a repressive anti-science religion that was only specific to some areas in the west, the Chinese had a society that promoted scientic progress
@Revolutionary - I don't claim my history to be perfect, but I beg to differ. Thier culture was very slow to change to anything they didn't invent thems, isolation was key. Maybe they didn't NEED gunpowder, but even after being shown the technology they didn't bother to develop it until after the Europeans tried to control them with guns.
It really depends on how you model the world, and how much trading, wars there are, and how many civs there are. If you have a modded game with 16-31 civs crammed into a small map, you'll be in the middle ages by turn 30 if you're lucky! That's because of all the trading, and goodyhut popping that goes on. Expasionist civs really help out with that kind of early trading.
Playing on Sid level with AP (haven't tried that yet...
) might yield the modern era before 10AD for example.
Playing on Sid level with AP (haven't tried that yet...
) might yield the modern era before 10AD for example.Revolutionary
Anarchy!
I didn't say they quickly accepted technology from other peoples which they refered to as "barbarians", the Chinese rulers at the time were very arrogant, and yes exactly they didn't bother to develop it BECAUSE they didn't need to until the Europeans came and once they came the Chinese started to develop it because they NEEDED to for defence
this is true for most peoples its human nature, people tend not to develop or improve their technology, society, or culture unless its out of necessitate or its benefits are apparent, immediate, and greater then it costs
Micky Onimusha
Prince
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2004
- Messages
- 344
I thought the idea of this game was to 'Change history'
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Of course, if you want greater historical accuracy it is not a problem to write up a mod. There are two ways you can solve this problem, one is to change the relationship between turns and the passage of years, the other (my preference) is to slow down tech and make research more expensive. Modding is where it's at if you don't like the way the game's rules go.
The one thing the person mentioned earlier about the collapse of empires and actual technological regression and stagnation (like Europe in the Dark Ages) simply cannot be duplicated in the game. It is, after all, just a game, not an infallible computer model of human history.
The one thing the person mentioned earlier about the collapse of empires and actual technological regression and stagnation (like Europe in the Dark Ages) simply cannot be duplicated in the game. It is, after all, just a game, not an infallible computer model of human history.
frekk
Scourge of St. Lawrence
Originally posted by Revolutionary
The Egyptian and Sumerian civilizations began around 5,000 BC, so one can argue that the starting date is too late
But I do agree with you that in the higher levels tech advancement is very fast, I remember in one game in demi-god playing as the Incas on a huge pangea map I got to the industrial age in the 700s AD
@Kiech thats not true the Chinese didn't develop gunpowder any further simply because they didn't need to at the time, it had nothing to do with there beliefs, the Chinese didn't have a repressive anti-science religion that was only specific to some areas in the west, the Chinese had a society that promoted scientic progress
That's not entirely true. The Imperial structure stifled technological progress on many occasions. Their technological/social conservativism wasn't based directly on religion, but that's not to say it wasn't there. Look at Chinese maritime policies. China probably could have had a true imperial age and became the world superpower for all time had imperial society not repressed the merchant class so much, they certainly had the naval technology to have dominated the Pacific. China was really conservative and repressive, just in a different way. The Chinese state was more centralized during the time the Renaissance was occuring in Europe, it had more control and unlike in Europe it was relatively easy to politically stifle dissent and prevent the rise of a middle class, and everything that went along with that, the rise of industrialism, the abolishment of protectionism, etc etc.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
The in game date is irrelevant. The game is not designed to mirror history.
Thanks for the responses everyone. I was just wondering why it was like that because back when I played Civ2, the date pretty much kept up with the technologies of the time. But then again, I was playing on the easiest setting and with only three civs. (Paystation version is sooooo slow with more than that. 
)
I know that the date is irrelevant and it's just a game, but I just thought it was funny to win the space race in the 1500's.
)I know that the date is irrelevant and it's just a game, but I just thought it was funny to win the space race in the 1500's.
Revolutionary
Anarchy!
I didn't say there society always promoted technological advancement, like I said before it depended on there current rulers and on there needs, the Chinese had no need for an over-seas empire, they had practically everything they wanted at home
the Europeans on the other hand desperately needed to expand over-seas they needed gold and other valuable resourses for trade with the east, the Europeans had a real good reason to expand over-seas, the Chinese did not
again like I said before change depends on needs and/or benefits that are apparent and greater then its costs
Revolutionary
Anarchy!
Originally posted by DanielF
Thanks for the responses everyone. I was just wondering why it was like that because back when I played Civ2, the date pretty much kept up with the technologies of the time. But then again, I was playing on the easiest setting and with only three civs. (Paystation version is sooooo slow with more than that.
I know that the date is irrelevant and it's just a game, but I just thought it was funny to win the space race in the 1500's.
so did II also played the playstation version of Civ2, I remember later on in the game that the turns seemed to become endless
I use to play with all 7 civs, and similar to your games my technological advancement also seemed to keep up with the date
