Streamers debating the new AGES in Civ 7!

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

Interesting, i might definitely have to pick up and read this one at some point... even if from a first glance its thesis seems be a stretch. Yes, Viking expeditions found the Americas first but marking that as the beginning of globalization or using a Mayan mural of people depicted with blonde hair as evidence of a widespread cultural exchange between the Norse and the Americas seems completely disingenious.

and this historigraphic framing doesn't change that the tech tree for the exploration age seems to stretch well past the 1500s
 
Last edited:
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.
The pacing in Civ 6 was never that good. While I enjoyed eurekas, they only made it worse. You would fly through the techs with very little time to build whatever buildings they unlocked, or new troops, before you were already in the next era. This has been my main complaint of Civ 6 since release. Hopefully 7 does it better.
 
Interesting, i might definitely have to pick up and read this one at some point... even if from a first glance its thesis seems be a stretch. Yes, Viking expeditions found the Americas first but marking that as the beginning of globalization or using a Mayan mural of people depicted with blonde hair as evidence of a widespread cultural exchange between the Norse and the Americas seems a completely disingenious.

and this historigraphic framing doesn't change that the tech tree for the exploration age seems to stretch well past the 1500s
Yes it’s a contentious conversation for sure, but something Dr. Johnson (civs historian) said on twitter might shed more light: “Re: historical frames of reference, without getting too specific, I want to note that whatever historical trends etc we might latch onto have to be true for much of the world at that time. I’m always asking myself: ok in this date, what does China look like? India? SS Africa?”

I am interpreting that to mean they can’t just take the Portuguese/Spanish exploration as the only drive of that era, and instead thinking about what does exploration mean for the Pacific islands, or Indian oceans? And to me that still means around 1000? Would love to hear more interpretations (or knows more about China or SS Africa examples) and if anyone thinks I’m off base with this one. I’m not going to push him to answer more though assuming he’s under a strict NDA… also half the fun is trying to figure out what’s going on with just hints of information!
 
Yes it’s a contentious conversation for sure, but something Dr. Johnson (civs historian) said on twitter might shed more light: “Re: historical frames of reference, without getting too specific, I want to note that whatever historical trends etc we might latch onto have to be true for much of the world at that time. I’m always asking myself: ok in this date, what does China look like? India? SS Africa?”
If we hadn't already seen the Exploration tech tree and the units there, I would've taken this as a hint that we'll finally get crossbows in antiquity. People don't like if nukes appear in 1850 but crossbows appearing over a millennium off has been a eurocentric design tradition I had been hoping would end with Civ VII.
 
I am interpreting that to mean they can’t just take the Portuguese/Spanish exploration as the only drive of that era, and instead thinking about what does exploration mean for the Pacific islands, or Indian oceans? And to me that still means around 1000? Would love to hear more interpretations (or knows more about China or SS Africa examples) and if anyone thinks I’m off base with this one. I’m not going to push him to answer more though assuming he’s under a strict NDA… also half the fun is trying to figure out what’s going on with just hints of information!

Good point about Polynesia.

Between them, the Viking explorations, China's 15th century expeditions and Spain and Portugal in the 15th and early 17th century, I guess something like 600-1600 would be the most sensible time span to cover, give or take a few decades on either side.
 
Yes it’s a contentious conversation for sure, but something Dr. Johnson (civs historian) said on twitter might shed more light: “Re: historical frames of reference, without getting too specific, I want to note that whatever historical trends etc we might latch onto have to be true for much of the world at that time. I’m always asking myself: ok in this date, what does China look like? India? SS Africa?”

I totally understand trying to move away from more euro-centric conventions such as "the Renaissance" but I think trying to completely redefine historical periods by broad global trends is also a losing prospect. Even if we stopped time in 1000ad and looked around the world, the "trends" of peoples and nations of that world wouldn't look the same.

I am interpreting that to mean they can’t just take the Portuguese/Spanish exploration as the only drive of that era, and instead thinking about what does exploration mean for the Pacific islands, or Indian oceans? And to me that still means around 1000? Would love to hear more interpretations (or knows more about China or SS Africa examples) and if anyone thinks I’m off base with this one. I’m not going to push him to answer more though assuming he’s under a strict NDA… also half the fun is trying to figure out what’s going on with just hints of information!

It seems you're pretty on base about their reasoning behind eras, even if that reasoning is contentious. It seems weird to me to even try to frame the entire era stretching from what most in the west would consider "early middle ages" all the into early modern under the umbrella of the "Exploration Age" (which itself is very specific Eurocentric convention) even with the rest of the world in mind.

Looking at the Pacific, the Polynesia colonization of islands in the ocean began in early antiquity and the process simply continued unntil the early modern period. There had already been inter-ocean trade between India and Africa in the time of the Romans. So is the Classical period now an Age of Exploration? Where are we drawing the line and why ?

China sent out its treasure fleet expeditions almost contemporanously with European expeditions in the 15th century, but their expeditions just explored the along coasts of its known world. We have records of Mansa Munsa's predessecor going on a failed expedition to discover rich lands to the west but most of these examples remain outliers of their own history, let alone as a historical trend of their regions, continents, or the entire world. if that makes sense.
 
If we hadn't already seen the Exploration tech tree and the units there, I would've taken this as a hint that we'll finally get crossbows in antiquity. People don't like if nukes appear in 1850 but crossbows appearing over a millennium off has been a eurocentric design tradition I had been hoping would end with Civ VII.
I mean Han China needs a unique unit.
I totally understand trying to move away from more euro-centric conventions such as "the Renaissance" but I think trying to completely redefine historical periods by broad global trends is also a losing prospect. Even if we stopped time in 1000ad and looked around the world, the "trends" of peoples and nations of that world wouldn't look the same.
I probably would have broken up this into two ages, just for the sheer amount of discrepancy of not lumping in Medieval with Early Modern cultures. But in reality, the term "Medieval" I guess is as much a Eurocentric word as "Renaissance" and I guess "Exploration" is indeed a less specific term as it covers all the different cultures of this time period.
 
In a global scheme China is the traditional example of a civ "ahead of its time", and not just comparead to Europe but also to the Middle East and India.
For a traditional CIV scheme of eras unlock techs of the next era should be possible then even if CIV use an eurocentric model where Crossbow is Medieval and Gunpowder is Renaissance a civ like China could still research them in advance. By the way China in particular should have a bonus to research "ahead of time" tech without the cost increase penalization.

By the way funny thing that I suggested many times a more thematic era design (included the new world maps as balance base) but for most people it seemed to be too restrictive but now Firaxis come with a way more restrictive and railroaded version of it and then we are here mental gymnastic the pigeondholed civs and techs. :crazyeye:
 
In a global scheme China is the traditional example of a civ "ahead of its time", and not just comparead to Europe but also to the Middle East and India.
For a traditional CIV scheme of eras unlock techs of the next era should be possible then even if CIV use an eurocentric model where Crossbow is Medieval and Gunpowder is Renaissance a civ like China could still research them in advance. By the way China in particular should have a bonus to research "ahead of time" tech without the cost increase penalization.
Luckily for China, they seem to each have a civ across all three ages. So, a unit that uses crossbows early could still be obtainable for Antiquity Han, and an early gunpowder unit for Exploration Ming.
 
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
It's also highly dependent on difficulty level. Even in V, 1600-1700s rocketry is going to be the norm on deity. It's a total non-issue for me.
 
I totally understand trying to move away from more euro-centric conventions such as "the Renaissance" but I think trying to completely redefine historical periods by broad global trends is also a losing prospect. Even if we stopped time in 1000ad and looked around the world, the "trends" of peoples and nations of that world wouldn't look the same.



It seems you're pretty on base about their reasoning behind eras, even if that reasoning is contentious. It seems weird to me to even try to frame the entire era stretching from what most in the west would consider "early middle ages" all the into early modern under the umbrella of the "Exploration Age" (which itself is very specific Eurocentric convention) even with the rest of the world in mind.

Looking at the Pacific, the Polynesia colonization of islands in the ocean began in early antiquity and the process simply continued unntil the early modern period. There had already been inter-ocean trade between India and Africa in the time of the Romans. So is the Classical period now an Age of Exploration? Where are we drawing the line and why ?

China sent out its treasure fleet expeditions almost contemporanously with European expeditions in the 15th century, but their expeditions just explored the along coasts of its known world. We have records of Mansa Munsa's predessecor going on a failed expedition to discover rich lands to the west but most of these examples remain outliers of their own history, let alone as a historical trend of their regions, continents, or the entire world. if that makes sense.
I have not read your other posts, but I want to make a point or two. From this post, you seem to be focused on sea based exploration. Exploration can be done on land and through the air as well. Does this mean flight? Maybe. I don’t think the age will go that far, but what about the balloon? Exploration can also apply to the telescope. Exploration into science as well. The Renaissance is an era of exploration as is the Islamic Golden Age that kick started that era. Exploration is a word to imply discovery, with discovery being a problematic word for non-Europeans. We can explore through all of our senses and our minds. I think the term is the best word possible to describe this era of world history, because all people explore.
 
I have not read your other posts, but I want to make a point or two. From this post, you seem to be focused on sea based exploration. Exploration can be done on land and through the air as well. Does this mean flight? Maybe. I don’t think the age will go that far, but what about the balloon? Exploration can also apply to the telescope. Exploration into science as well. The Renaissance is an era of exploration as is the Islamic Golden Age that kick started that era. Exploration is a word to imply discovery, with discovery being a problematic word for non-Europeans. We can explore through all of our senses and our minds. I think the term is the best word possible to describe this era of world history, because all people explore.

I'm focused on sea-based exploration because that is the example the devs gave us specifically when justifying their "Exploration Age" which literally expands the map and is themed entirely around desire for commodoties from distant lands.

1726667747775.png


Every human breathes and yet we're not naming the age "the Age of Breathe". The Age of Exploration is an already defined historical concept. The in-game era does not extend to hot air balloons, let alone airplanes. It's pretty obvious the "exploration" being refered to is physical and not refering to technological advances like the Islamic Golden Age and the telescope. If scientific achievement was the theme of the age than the Modern Age (which would include the telescope and revolution of scientific astronomy) deserves the name "Exploration Age"
 
Last edited:
Must be hard to decide where to divide the Ages and what to call them. The decision to use only 3 is clearly a gameplay choice, rather than a historical one. I think they've made some sensible choices, all things considered - even if Exploration evokes the Age of Discovery, it's a broad enough term that it can encompass a greater period, imo.
 
Last edited:
I liked the video and the kinds of questions it raises.

In raising the questions, there is (as the video notes) always the historical perspective and the game perspective. Periodization is a huge issue within the field of history. A game just needs phases it can go through. In Monopoly there's the buying properties stage, the house stage and the hotel stage. As a mere strategy game, a game like Civ could just have Age 1, Age 2, Age 3, or just a time-line with no ages designated (as the streamers point out, in earlier incarnations, the divisions didn't have much bearing on the game in their own right, separately from their being the phases at which particular technologies came in). Since Civ is historically-themed, there will be some correspondence between their names for their ages and terms that historians use, but, again, those names are an object of controversy within the field of history, so there's not likely to be consensus anyway on the historical side of things.

On the game end, as the video remarked, they just want the three act structure of storytelling. Antiquity means Old, Modern means now; they need some name for the second, but "Middle" is problematic, since it has a place in a different tripartite naming structure, and strong associations as to time period as a result, that don't entirely match this game's middle. So they picked something that is 1) characteristic and distinctive about that broad era of human history and 2) one of the Xs in 4x games.

It's a good historical question what would make for a better name for Age 2 on these terms. If we know that the period is roughly 800-1800 (I date from when one recovers from the crisis and starts the next era, not from when Antiquity ends), you would have to think of something that is true 1) globally of that period, and 2) as distinct from the other two. Reaching out toward a global level of connectedness strikes me as filling the bill about as well as anything I can think of, and, given the time-frame they wanted to carve out for their Age 2, the idea of "exploration" is capacious enough to take in earlier Norse and Polynesian efforts as well as the colonialist explorations of Western European countries.

Even if every civ got its own calendar, there would have to be a master-calendar that coordinated all of them, again if only for game-play reasons, Since the game of Civ is fundamentally a race, you need something that can mark various civs' progress, relative to one another, in that race. Chutes (or Snakes) and Ladders is a race; all of the players need to be competing on the same grid, and with the same limits on how much they can advance in a turn, for there to be any kind of measure of who won.
 
Last edited:
I'm focused on sea-based exploration because that is the example the devs gave us specifically when justifying their "Exploration Age" which literally expands the map and is themed entirely around desire for commodoties from distant lands.

View attachment 703768

Every human breathes and yet we're not naming the age "the Age of Breathe". The Age of Exploration is an already defined historical concept. The in-game era does not extend to hot air balloons, let alone airplanes. It's pretty obvious the "exploration" being refered to is physical and not refering to technological advances like the Islamic Golden Age and the telescope. If scientific achievement was the theme of the age than the Modern Age (which would include the telescope and revolution of scientific astronomy) deserves the name "Exploration Age"
Respectively, “the age of breathe” comment makes this discussion meaningless. You are here to argue a position without room for understanding or resolution. Don’t get upset by this comment. It’s a fair observation based on the absurdity of your statement. It was dismissive and sarcastic.

Another thing, there is a difference between development and marketing. A marketing point, like a movie trailer, doesn’t necessarily represent the depth of the creator’s vision or intentions.

Some more thoughts. Ages aren’t, and shouldn’t be, defined by a strict timeline. When Rome fell, it didn’t do so instantly. Historians create dates and eras for their use. Acute events happen on dates, but the era and the results take time, sometimes hundreds of years, to resolve. Like measuring a coastline, you can only approximate it.

I think your issue with the “ages” can be summed up with this view: traditional historical narrative versus existential historical examination. Civ VII seems to be more about historical existentialism than historical narrative. I find this new approach refreshing. Instead of the political, economic events being the focus, now the human experience seems to take center stage. The meaning of the “ages” means more than the defined time frame.
 
Respectively, “the age of breathe” comment makes this discussion meaningless. You are here to argue a position without room for understanding or resolution. Don’t get upset by this comment. It’s a fair observation based on the absurdity of your statement. It was dismissive and sarcastic.

I'm sorry that you think I was being dismissive but the thing you read as sarcastic was me actually trying to make a point. Though I understand in hindsight how what i wrote may be interpreted as trying to be dismissive and I apologize. The point is simply an extension of the question in the original comment that you quoted. Where are we drawing the line and why?

You're alluding to some metaphysical conception of "exploration" ex: exploration of sciences but by that logic why wouldn't the Modern Era be more deserving of the title "Age of Exploration"? What about the continents and peoples who didn't have scientific establishments? This period from 400-1600 is also defined by conquest and the establishment of empires. Why isn't the second age called the "Age of Empires"? Where is the line drawn when trying to define such wide periods global trends? This is the actual conversation being had and I'm sincerly not trying to dismiss you even when I poke holes in reasoning.

Another thing, there is a difference between development and marketing. A marketing point, like a movie trailer, doesn’t necessarily represent the depth of the creator’s vision or intentions.

So again, I don't want to be dismissive but I'm going to go based on what Firaxis has advertised and repeatedly showcased and stated as their intent for the Age vs. baseless speculating their intent. The map quite literally expands during the era, the tech tree extends into atleast 1600s and the repeatedly stated theme of the era is about finding new commodities in far off lands. Until stated otherwise the Exploration being refered to is physical.

Some more thoughts. Ages aren’t, and shouldn’t be, defined by a strict timeline. When Rome fell, it didn’t do so instantly. Historians create dates and eras for their use. Acute events happen on dates, but the era and the results take time, sometimes hundreds of years, to resolve. Like measuring a coastline, you can only approximate it.

I think your issue with the “ages” can be summed up with this view: traditional historical narrative versus existential historical examination. Civ VII seems to be more about historical existentialism than historical narrative. I find this new approach refreshing. Instead of the political, economic events being the focus, now the human experience seems to take center stage. The meaning of the “ages” means more than the defined time frame.

See the funny thing is, My issue with ages is entirely on the unnecessarity of splitting the game into three seperate game rounds and then justifying a purely gameplay decision afterwards in flimsily historical justification. These changes serve gameplay first and foremost and the "existential historical examination" you seem to believe Firaxis is trying to create really doesn't seem to exist. I'd argue that it seems that Firaxis seems more concerned with forcing arbitrary narrative and railroaded structure into their inherently sandbox 4x game than I am concerned with expecting a "traditional historical narrative" from Civilization, whatever that means .
 
Last edited:
See the funny thing is, My issue with ages is entirely on the unessecarity of splitting the game into three seperate game rounds and then justifying a purely gameplay decision afterwards in flimsily historical justification. These changes serve gameplay first and foremost and the "existential historical examination" you seem to believe Firaxis is trying to create really doesn't seem to exist. I'd argue that it seems that Firaxis seems more concerned with forcing arbitrary narrative into their inherently sandbox 4x game than I am concerned with expecting a "traditional historical narrative" from Civilization, whatever that means .
I think the gameplay purpose of 3 ages to prevent late game boredom, create narrative is one big "nothing to do with history" reason for the ages.

But another big "Definitely History" gameplay reason is that the ages will have different mechanics
This is important because Historically (both IRL and in people's understanding) certain things worked Very differently at different times.

In Civ 1-6 they had to come up with a Combat mechanic that
1. captured the feel of phalanxes pushing on each other
AND
2. captured the feel of bombers going through AA fire to hit a tank army

....and that's just the Combat mechanic, because they are going from the Stone Age to the Space Age, making interlocking systems that deal with such a wide variety is very complicated and gives very weird results.

Because the game is based in History, allowing certain mechanics to change/end/start for ALL players at a certain point is more than just a gameplay decision it helps the feeling of fitting history.

So no travelling across the ocean in the first age
No air travel in the second age
Riflemen are probably melee in the third age
etc.

Admittedly Age of Exploration is awkwardly titled. But putting that from ~400-1700 AD.... the most significant thing that happened in that time (if one has to be chosen) was probably the first true globalization.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Top Bottom