History student and civ streamer @Paisley_Trees is discussing with a fellow historian the ages in Civ7, independent of the civ switching.
They first outline how they got to the conclusion of the date range, and discuss that this is all gameplay based, and not history base.
They then further discuss the historical concepts of ages, that a controversial book may have influened how they are used in Civ7, and that Firaxis is making interesting choices.
As last part they also discuss another topic which has come up in the forum, that the ages make civ tell a narrative, and goes away from a complete sandbox style of previous civ games.
If you're interested in a bit philosophical discussion of the concept of ages, then have a look at the video!
Thank you so much @The_J ! There’s much more I maybe should have included in this conversation (like the difficulty of placing the Mayans which spans the ages) but I think a lot of insightful and interesting comments have already been made on this site that I’ve enjoyed reading! I very much appreciate these posts of our videos too and being included in the CivFanatics community!
It can be rather complicated to be also concise .
I very much agree with some of the latter parts of the video, that essentially each civ has their own calendar, as progress in Europe was differently timed as in Asia. This would make the game probably too convoluted though, so I don't think it'll be useful as a game concept.
I would disagree with abandoning the labeling though. Labeling is useful as it attaches some concepts and ideas to a name and they can be discussed. Obviously it's a simplification, but it is still useful.
It can be rather complicated to be also concise .
I very much agree with some of the latter parts of the video, that essentially each civ has their own calendar, as progress in Europe was differently timed as in Asia. This would make the game probably too convoluted though, so I don't think it'll be useful as a game concept.
I would disagree with abandoning the labeling though. Labeling is useful as it attaches some concepts and ideas to a name and they can be discussed. Obviously it's a simplification, but it is still useful.
It was a little bit tongue in cheek since it’s a very difficult thing to do, but it’s interesting that Zaarin mentioned they’ve tried it for the Mayans before in civ 5! I’ll have to give it a play through to recall how it worked. But essentially it’s more of a philosophical question rather than a clear gameplay suggestion. The way civ works now is that it takes our current concept of time and historical categories and projects it onto the past. What would it look like if we took different concepts of time and calendars and applied it as a game mechanic? I’m not a game developer so I’ll trust that they did what is best for the game, but I do think it would be a very interesting way of creating immersion!
I wouldn't mind the calendar gone. We measure distance in tiles, not km. Population in city size, not people. Time in turns, not years.
People would find nuclear fission in 1700 CE out of place and "unimmersive" but is that really an unlikely scenario if you have a people from 4000 BCE to the present day uninterruptedly focusing their society on deliberate technological progress, with no economic decline, temporary loss of knowledge, etc. setting back progress? Here, a "what if" gameplay gets into conflict with a predetermined expectation of your world's history.
We don't have a turns to years equivalent anyway, turns represent fewer and fewer years each as the game goes on. Your ancient armies do not actually need 40 years just to deploy outside their city. Even when the timeline compresses, I wish you good luck getting a modern world war done in 4-5 turns.
I think the game could still create the sense of a timeline in the player's head by referencing cultures, people, technologies, etc. that the player associates with certain times. And players advancing to these things at different speeds would no longer be at odds with a calendar moving at a predetermined speed.
Removing the traditional calendar also doesn't require abandoning the *feeling* of a calendar. The turn counter can be given calendar-like flavor still. In antiquity, it could say "X turns AUC". Once a religion has been founded, it could be "Y turns AD" (if everyone just founds a religion in the beginning of era 2, you can even align these with the era transitions).
I wouldn't mind the calendar gone. We measure distance in tiles, not km. Population in city size, not people. Time in turns, not years.
People would find nuclear fission in 1700 CE out of place and "unimmersive" but is that really an unlikely scenario if you have a people from 4000 BCE to the present day uninterruptedly focusing their society on deliberate technological progress, with no economic decline, temporary loss of knowledge, etc. setting back progress? Here, a "what if" gameplay gets into conflict with a predetermined expectation of your world's history.
We don't have a turns to years equivalent anyway, turns represent fewer and fewer years each as the game goes on. Your ancient armies do not actually need 40 years just to deploy outside their city. Even when the timeline compresses, I wish you good luck getting a modern world war done in 4-5 turns.
I think the game could still create the sense of a timeline in the player's head by referencing cultures, people, technologies, etc. that the player associates with certain times. And players advancing to these things at different speeds would no longer be at odds with a calendar moving at a predetermined speed.
Removing the traditional calendar also doesn't require abandoning the *feeling* of a calendar. The turn counter can be given calendar-like flavor still. In antiquity, it could say "X turns AUC". Once a religion has been founded, it could be "Y turns AD" (if everyone just founds a religion in the beginning of era 2, you can even align these with the era transitions).
8 Eras from civ5 — separation loosely defined to be this (yes it is Euro- and Western- centric, sorry Asians, Africans, and Native Americans…)
Ancient - Cradle of civilization in Middle East to founding of Ancient Greece
Classical - end at fall of Western Rome
Medieval - end at fall of Eastern Rome
Renaissance - end at start of Industrialization
Industrial - end at start of WW1
Modern - end at start of Cold War
Atomic - end at fall of USSR
Information - end in 2050
The original civ5 game speeds were really bad, 75 turns for Ancient era but only 25 turns for Medieval…
This is my personal changes to the Standard (500 turns total) and Epic (750 turns total) speed time increment for Civ5 calendar — try my best to equally give each era similar game turns and fit with the real world timeframe.
Civ7 is ruining immersion dare I say. Buganda is not “Modern” age — it is a pre-colonial African civ taken over during the Industrial Era
A lot could be achieved by no longer starting it in 4000 BC. In Civ VII, you unlock classical governments, a fancy palace that isn't just some huts, and possibly quite advanced uniques, rather early. A move of the start date would not be out of place alongside this.
I love the mod. As I said, I don't think removing the year count means one has to remove the calendar flavor itself. We could still have calendars but just have them measure time in turns exclusively. But maybe just giving each culture a specific calendar is enough. A person who might intuitively feel nukes in 1800 AD are "unrealistic" while playing might not have the same experience with nukes in 2550 AUC.
I never thought the dates meant anything except just visual flair, like aesthetic appeal.
(ie "wow we're living in the 1300s now!")
I think Civ5 did it fairly well because the Calendar Year and the State of the Game usually lined up really well. When it was 1800s calendar, it was usually 1800s technology.
Same can't be easily said with Civ6, because you will see all kinds of 1400s Rockets and such. I think due to faster relative pace.
But yea I don't think the year actually matters besides fun and flair
I never thought the dates meant anything except just visual flair, like aesthetic appeal.
(ie "wow we're living in the 1300s now!")
I think Civ5 did it fairly well because the Calendar Year and the State of the Game usually lined up really well. When it was 1800s calendar, it was usually 1800s technology.
Same can't be easily said with Civ6, because you will see all kinds of 1400s Rockets and such. I think due to faster relative pace.
But yea I don't think the year actually matters besides fun and flair
I never thought the dates meant anything except just visual flair, like aesthetic appeal.
(ie "wow we're living in the 1300s now!")
I think Civ5 did it fairly well because the Calendar Year and the State of the Game usually lined up really well. When it was 1800s calendar, it was usually 1800s technology.
Same can't be easily said with Civ6, because you will see all kinds of 1400s Rockets and such. I think due to faster relative pace.
But yea I don't think the year actually matters besides fun and flair
Civ 6 has horribly balanced science costs, I've brought this point up, the tech of the most expensive cost in 6 is far cheaper than the cost of 5, and there are better sources of Science (campuses, city states) in 6, so it should've been more expensive.
Depending on the precise usage of "modern age", it can refer to a time as far back as 'anything after the middle ages'. That's probably not how Civ VII uses it (it'd overlap with the Age of Exploration), but it's not weird to delineate the eras around 1700. At that time, and indeed even a hundred years later, colonial ambitions in Africa mostly consisted of coastal outposts where you could stop on your journey to the far east (or buy slaves to carry west to the New World).
Depending on the precise usage of "modern age", it can refer to a time as far back as 'anything after the middle ages'. That's probably not how Civ VII uses it (it'd overlap with the Age of Exploration), but it's not weird to delineate the eras around 1700. At that time, and indeed even a hundred years later, colonial ambitions in Africa mostly consisted of coastal outposts where you could stop on your journey to the far east (or buy slaves to carry west to the New World).
Yep. It seems that "Modern", within the context of Civ 7, includes most, if not all, of the colonial period. It absolutely does NOT start with industrialization. This lines up in many ways with the designation of the Renaissance and Enlightenment as being "Early Modern", except it does not distinguish between "Early Modern" and "Modern". "Early Modern" being only the beginning of "Modern". The question now is, how early is it going to start?
Yep. It seems that "Modern", within the context of Civ 7, includes most, if not all, of the colonial period. It absolutely does NOT start with industrialization. This lines up in many ways with the designation of the Renaissance and Enlightenment as being "Early Modern", except it does not distinguish between "Early Modern" and "Modern". "Early Modern" being only the beginning of "Modern". The question now is, how early is it going to start?
I think around 1700, because otherwise you start eating away from the Exploration Age too much.
Although thinking about it, the Viking (and Norman) expeditions could also be viewed as exploration, so perhaps I shouldn't be thinking of a "true" exploration age that only starts in the late 15th century.
In fact, Marco Polo probably also qualifies.
Either way, by counting more exploration than just "Europeans start sailing across the entire world", you can better justify an early cutoff date, I guess.
I think around 1700, because otherwise you start eating away from the Exploration Age too much.
Although thinking about it, the Viking (and Norman) expeditions could also be viewed as exploration, so perhaps I shouldn't be thinking of a "true" exploration age that only starts in the late 15th century.
In fact, Marco Polo probably also qualifies.
Either way, by counting more exploration than just "Europeans start sailing across the entire world", you can better justify an early cutoff date, I guess.
As @Paisley_Trees pointed out in her recent video, it seems that Exploration Age is meant to conceptually reach its height with the Norse reaching North America in the Viking Age, not the subsequent feats of exploration by Portugal, Spain, and England. I'm eager to read the book she discussed: https://morgensternbooks.com/book/9781501194115
I’m not counting “Exploration” as solely literal, travel-based exploration. Willing to grant it some literary license and take it to mean a Post-“Dark Age” exploration in the sciences and humanities
Yep. It seems that "Modern", within the context of Civ 7, includes most, if not all, of the colonial period. It absolutely does NOT start with industrialization. This lines up in many ways with the designation of the Renaissance and Enlightenment as being "Early Modern", except it does not distinguish between "Early Modern" and "Modern". "Early Modern" being only the beginning of "Modern". The question now is, how early is it going to start?
In contemporary historiography, the modern era includes the early modern era. So, it's correct to say that 1500 is the start of the modern era.
The latest tech of Age 2 that we know would suggest 1500s or 1600s as end. So in civ VII, the modern era will likely start in 1600 or 1700 tech-wise. But the displayed date might differ. After all, you can research High Medieval (1100s) techs at the beginning of Age 2, but the displayed date is 400.
I'm personally very happy that the word "Renaissance" doesn't pop up any more to describe an era. It's a better fit in art history than in other frameworks of history. And it definitely shouldn't last post 1600 in any definition (but may start anywhere from 800 to 1500).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
.
