The three eras: Thoughts about the world after the atomic bomb

[hoplite_fan]

About one month ago, I got to learn what Civ7 would be like and one of the things that got my immediate attention was the three eras separation, which I think it makes perfect sense . There, I have learnt the devs would restrict the modern age to 1750-1950, leaving out everything that has happened for the past 75 years, which I think it's fine as well, better to cut it than to implement half-heartedly . This topic is my musings on how they can better implement this part of history in future patches or releases

To start off, I think we are still in the third era, there is no significant rift between the world from the past 80 years ago to the world from the past 275 years ago, history seems very streamlined across the board . If there is any rift at all, I think it's between the world of 1945-2008 and the world of 2008-2025, the latter being the era where the world is entering into the multipolar world order, in dire contrast with the bipolar (1945-1991) and unipolar (1991-2008) world order the world went through

Another thing that sets the multipolar world order era (2008-2025) apart is how the internet fully bloomed by late 2000s, once bloomed, it has been causing social changes that are very much visible in the landscape and pyramid demographics of nearly every city in the world

I don't think there is a way to properly implement content from the 1950-2025 era into the game without a population pyramid mechanics, which are probably too complicated to code by now, perhaps in Civ VIII they can implement it

 

[notNamed]

There, I have learnt the devs would restrict the modern age to 1750-1950, leaving out everything that has happened for the past 75 years

That's not the case, though. The game clearly has an Apollo Program and Saturn V rockets which got to the Moon in 1969. It is the military units that stop at WW2.

So bullet trains, nuclear power plants, integrated circuits, LASER, satellite communication, arcade cabinets,... are all good to go.

 

[AriochIV]

That's not the case, though. The game clearly has an Apollo Program and Saturn V rockets which got to the Moon in 1969. It is the military units that stop at WW2.

So bullet trains, nuclear power plants, transistors, LASER, satellite communication, arcade cabinets,... are all good to go.

Except none of those things are in the game either. The Rocketry tech and Moon mission is the only thing we know of that is post-WWII.

 

[Krikkit1]

Except none of those things are in the game either. The Rocketry tech and Moon mission is the only thing we know of that is post-WWII.

No moon mission, the victory for space is Manned spaceflight ie Gagarin 61

 

[Lord Shadow]

I'd wager that given the detailed approach they've taken to eras, they're leaving the Information Era for a major expansion.

I doubt they really plan to leave it at an awkward pseudo-post-WW2, not-quite-Cold-War period.

 

[sTAPler27]

If the game really ends around 1960 I expect the last age to be broken up into thirds. First third will be the rise of Computers, Second will be the rise of the Internet and the Third will be more speculative. Essentially it would be the recent past, our present and the near future, a fitting way to end the game.

For military (which I know very little about) in American terms I expect the units to be based around the 70s, 00s and near future inspired, so think Vietnam, Iraq and perhaps an approach Humankind did with introducing Exosuits as a realistic enough near future Infantry tech.

Civic wise I think the first third will be focused on the rise of pop culture, the strides made in civil rights, the final kick to colonialism and the peak of Cold War tension. Second part would focus on the rise of the idea of the "Global Village" through ecommerce and the easier flow of information. If the final age is more speculative it might focus on your nations's sense of duty or tie to the global community.

Tech wise the first third will likely focus on finishing up our real world space race. The second is quite self explanitory as we're living during that period. If this age will be made a paid dlc it would be nice if the last third made those last 30 or so turns feel like a proper future age, back in Civ 6 most of that last age was more or less just buffs to the GDR and Space Race stuff which made the end of that game kind of boring, even more so if you were playing for any victory other than Science or Military.

As for victories if they're similar to those of the prior age I imagine they'll thematically at least be around some sort of globalization. Culture would be about having marketable pop culture, having a thriving film or music industry that dominates local products.
An Economic Victory could center around either creating products for your oponents to import and/or establishing corporations with franchises and hqs globally.
A Military Victory could involve having military bases in every civ's borders and being able to serve as a "global policeman"
And lastly a Science Victory would more than likely be your typical Civ Science Victory with you sending a colony ship to the closest habitable planet.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Alternatively, considering the hurdles a fourth era would bring (i.e. new civilizations, markedly different gameplay), a simpler approach would be to build on the third era, add a couple of systems, perhaps a new crisis, extend the tech tree and introduce late 20th, early 21st century units. It is, however, a conservative approach, the same used for the past 6 games.

 

[sTAPler27]

a conservative approach, the same used for the past 6 games.

Given the age system is this games most advertised new feature and that a DLC likely sometime in the future will be what adds the 4th I can see the changes between ages being somewhat substantial. I mean that's more or less what Gathering Storm did except it was a lot more focused in on one overarching mechanic rather than a segregated chapter of a game.

I mean after all given how fleshed out each age is I doubt they'd skimp on the last one. We're likely to see 3 tiers of units like shown in Pax, a growth to all existing mechanics, likely a new core mechanic (Distant Lands in the Exploration Age or Factories in the Modern Age) and most importantly a new way to end the game which feels needed as while some of the victory conditions seem neat they don't feel like our standard victories and more like placeholders. I mean I think the Explorer system seems cool but given that in the last game a Cultural Victory basically meant basically becoming the one world Cultural beacon I think basically running the British Museum seems a bit lackluster by comparison, very fun but not worthy of a "cultural victory"

 

[aenima]

in a more sci-fi way, i really like to see for a fourth era what can be done after sending colony ship to a new world ... and have to colonize/terraformed this new world (a little bit like in Beyond Earth but with the history/experience of the game on the original world) ....

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

No moon mission, the victory for space is Manned spaceflight ie Gagarin 61

So vanilla ending is 1975? Before AD 2000

?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

in a more sci-fi way, i really like to see for a fourth era what can be done after sending colony ship to a new world ... and have to colonize/terraformed this new world (a little bit like in Beyond Earth but with the history/experience of the game on the original world) ....

Era 4. don't say that Siam will evolve into Singhapore?
evolutionary should be 'automatic transition' and not chosen.

 

[reddishrecue]

Can adding an era really happen in a future expansion? I think we already have enough eras but who knows? Maybe it could.

 

[sTAPler27]

in a more sci-fi way, i really like to see for a fourth era what can be done after sending colony ship to a new world ... and have to colonize/terraformed this new world (a little bit like in Beyond Earth but with the history/experience of the game on the original world) ....

I think the 4th age should embrace some speculative stuff but the only issue is that concept would lean very heavily into one victory type to the point where the Science victory would be its own game. So just Beyond Earth

 

[Potworny]

This thread made me think of a silly idea for a cold war-ish or world war-ish mechanic that would spice up the ideologies. How about giving a strongest civ from each ideology, or civs from the most proficient one a significant boost in settlement limit? Gajning this status, in my head, would engourage getting more territory in an already crowded map, and losing this status would cause kind of a crisis akin to the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, with peripheral settlements suffering most unhappiness from the penalties. And maybe it could be set up in a way that would encourage alliances and military conflicts. I dunno if that would work at all, but I wanted to throw it out there

On the ages cut off, I honestly ust hope that the ages will be expanded backward and forward instead of adding new ones.

 

[UWHabs]

I think the "problem" with a 4th age is that civ transitions can be a little weird. I guess you could add 4th age civs as lots of similar options to their 3rd age counterparts (French Empire -> France, America -> USA, Qing China -> People's Republic of China), but you're not going to like have America transition into Russia because you suddenly have some arctic lands you want to develop. Or transition Buganda into the USA because you chose Kennedy as your leader you're playing as.

I could see them change up the game a little bit, though. Maybe instead of the Modern Era crisis being random like the earlier eras, basically the "victory condition" in the Modern Era triggers a crisis. So the conquest "victory" triggers a World War crisis, the Manned Spaceflight Victory triggers a Space Race crisis, etc... And then once the crisis is resolved, instead of picking
new civs, each civ would automatically roll into an Information Era civ from there. From there, I think you probably bring back the old victory setups, like conquer the world, land in Alpha Centauri, etc...

 

[chaosprophet]

No moon mission, the victory for space is Manned spaceflight ie Gagarin 61

And then the victories are probably things you would expect to go a bit beyond the base scope of the game. It is a victory because that civ went a few steps ahead of the others from the same time,

 

[Uberfrog]

I think the "problem" with a 4th age is that civ transitions can be a little weird. I guess you could add 4th age civs as lots of similar options to their 3rd age counterparts (French Empire -> France, America -> USA, Qing China -> People's Republic of China), but you're not going to like have America transition into Russia because you suddenly have some arctic lands you want to develop. Or transition Buganda into the USA because you chose Kennedy as your leader you're playing as.

This is the key issue. The post-WW2 era is of course a significant new phase of world history. But I’d argue it is defined by one main process, that of decolonisation.

For most modern age civs, there is direct continuity into a 4th age - there is no reason at all to have a separate USA, a separate France, a separate Mexico, which defeats one of the main purposes of having a separate era on the first place.

However what we do have are the many new independent nations that entered the world stage, and these are all post-colonial: independent India (1947), Pakistan (1947) and Bangladesh (1971). Republics of Ghana (1957), Nigeria (1960) and Algeria (1962). Independent Vietnam (1945). Indonesia (1945) and Singapore (1965). We can even trace this back earlier in the 20th century with the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1932) and the independence of Egypt (1922). And of course later into the 1990s with the breakup of the Soviet Union, giving independent states in Europe and Central Asia.

This period is extremely important in shaping the modern world, but it represents the opposite of what the player is doing in a game of Civilization. Britain and France can obviously continue from the Modern Age into the Information Era, but as modest European nations, not gigantic imperial powers. Depicting this process properly will be a challenge for the devs.

 

[gdr_willter]

G

Thread '4th Age Civs based on your game playthrough, not IRL history'

Dec 17, 2024

I posted it at the 20th century leader/civ discussion originally. And now we saw the Modern Age live stream so I think we can really talk about this more effectively. I think the 4th Age expansion DLC will likely be there, but how? We already have America and France for 3rd Age Civs. And some of possible 4th Age Civs candidates are highly contentious as the country in real life.

What I want is the 4th Age Civs not based on the contemporary history IRL, but based on your whole playthrough of the match. It would be hard to deal with this game design, but I consider this idea has extremely...

• gdr_willter
• Replies: 23
• Forum: Civ7 - General Discussions

• 

I already posted somethings about it, the point is that the 4th Age Civ selection will came out from the playthrough of each game, instead of full Civ list like other Ages.

Contemporary nations which independent from empires were usually not the newborn people from void, they are the successors of old countries which were conquered/absorbed by empires. So this can be modeled in Civ 7 as the return of the old Civ you played in the pathway. When the 3rd Age ended, you will face the choice between 3 names. Each name is the one of each Civ you played in the match, and it will be modernized if needed.

To fulfill this with the existing full Civ list system, we need all 31 Civs for 4th Age to give the chance for it to all 1~3rd Age Civs. And it will ruin the main idea of "layered history" by designing Contemporary IRL Civ without the legacy of actual pathway Civs. When I played Egypt-Mongol-Qing playthrough, why my returning Egypt in 4th Age have to be the fatalistic Islam Republic instead of the Egyptian Empire led by Khan of Heaven? So I don't want to get the preset Civs, I want the final Civ as the mixture of 3 Civs in the pathway. This will be the great narative endgame faction as the real embodiment of the layered history.

This approch can be even more interesting when it combined with the Civ-splitting mechanic (the new Civ player with the name you didn't choose will be added in the final Age), but I think this is already cool enough.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is the key issue. The post-WW2 era is of course a significant new phase of world history. But I’d argue it is defined by one main process, that of decolonisation.

For most modern age civs, there is direct continuity into a 4th age - there is no reason at all to have a separate USA, a separate France, a separate Mexico, which defeats one of the main purposes of having a separate era on the first place.

However what we do have are the many new independent nations that entered the world stage, and these are all post-colonial: independent India (1947), Pakistan (1947) and Bangladesh (1971). Republics of Ghana (1957), Nigeria (1960) and Algeria (1962). Independent Vietnam (1945). Indonesia (1945) and Singapore (1965). We can even trace this back earlier in the 20th century with the establishment of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (1932) and the independence of Egypt (1922). And of course later into the 1990s with the breakup of the Soviet Union, giving independent states in Europe and Central Asia.

This period is extremely important in shaping the modern world, but it represents the opposite of what the player is doing in a game of Civilization. Britain and France can obviously continue from the Modern Age into the Information Era, but as modest European nations, not gigantic imperial powers. Depicting this process properly will be a challenge for the devs.

Decolonization could be a driving aspect of contemporary age, potentially mirroring the exploration age. I see it as some significant tax for keeping distant lands, which you could reduce greatly by liberating them, creating allies for you instead. Doing this right could potentially be very interesting.

Together with other potential mechanics of contemporary age like satellites or informational wars, this age could be really fun. But at the same time, if it happen, I also want this expansion to let you choose your start and end age for each game, so people who don't like it, could keep playing original 3, or even 2 ages instead.

 

[untitledjuan]

I find it rather weird that they implement a fourth era for a very short period of history (1960s to the present), instead of decompressing the Medieval and Early Modern Eras (400s to 1800s) into two separate Eras, insted of having them packed into a single "Exploration Era".

It doesn't make sense to have an Exploration Era that spans almos 1400 years and an equivalent "Contemporary Era" that only spans 60 years.

If anything, they could expand the third era into the present and add end-game crises to end the game, not to switch into another era.