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

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Civilization games always looked a bit in the near future, considering Alpha Centauri expedition, GDRs, etc. So it will be like 100 years or even more.

Also, exploration era is way shorter, around 700 to 1650.

 

[hoplite_fan]

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.

Military-wise, wars in this century are not that different from wars of the past century, despite all the hype about the "fifth generation warfare", infantry soldiers are very much needed, and so are tanks and artillery

Likewise for factories, were if not for red tape and offshoring policies many would still be getting away with using the same machines and equipments that they were using in the first half of the 20th century

 

[Pistol90]

My guess is new era in first expansion

Probably some hybrid civs like American-Union, EU, BRICS, NATO ... dont really like too-much alternative history, but if they implement new era in expansion, they would need all new civs which currently does exist in world

 

[Lord Shadow]

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.

It's entirely related to the escalation in rate of progress, something Civ has acknowledged since its first inception. It's the reason why 50 years go by in a single turn circa 4000 BC, but by 1900 AD the year-turn rate is down to 1:1.

Military-wise, wars in this century are not that different from wars of the past century, despite all the hype about the "fifth generation warfare", infantry soldiers are very much needed, and so are tanks and artillery

Likewise for factories, were if not for red tape and offshoring policies many would still be getting away with using the same machines and equipments that they were using in the first half of the 20th century

Not sure I agree. I mean, warfare always builds on top of itself. The fact post-1950 there's a greater emphasis on air power (first glimpsed in WW2), stand-off firepower (missiles) and the nascent appearance of drones and cyberwarfare doesn't remove the importance of tanks and boots on the ground. The infantryman has been critical since the dawn of history, artillery has existed in one form or another since antiquity, and tanks are an expansion and an evolution of the age-old concept of cavalry. They wouldn't go away.

The main issue with introducing a fourth era is the civilization switching aspect of it, considering the number of civs which reach their current form in the prior period. At least those would need to be retained, perhaps enhanced/updated on top to compete with potential new challengers introduced at this late stage (i.e. India, Japan, Korea, Nigeria, etc.). It remains to be seen whether this is compatible with the devs' design for Civ7.

 

[Uberfrog]

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.

I don’t quite agree with this. Of course the people did not spring from the void. But a lot of the time there was not actually a shared nationhood or unified identity prior to colonisation (and in many cases there still isn’t!).

This is what, for example, the ideology of Pan-Africanism is all about - building a new set of indigenous identities after the collapse of the empire. I’m not sure resurrecting the names of previously played civilisations does justice to that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

As said in Civ6 - "It is nationalism which engenders nations, and not the other way round". National identities could come from a lot of sources, American nation is quite interesting, for example.

I live on Balkans now and here the line between Serbs, Bosnians and Croatians is their religion. Bosnian person who converts to Orthodox Christianity usually becomes Serbian, like Emir Kusturica did. It's also interesting what people of Montenegro struggle to find really solid identity as they share religion with Serbs. As a result, now more than half of Montenegro population identify themselves as Serbs.

 

[gdr_willter]

I don’t quite agree with this. Of course the people did not spring from the void. But a lot of the time there was not actually a shared nationhood or unified identity prior to colonisation (and in many cases there still isn’t!).

This is what, for example, the ideology of Pan-Africanism is all about - building a new set of indigenous identities after the collapse of the empire. I’m not sure resurrecting the names of previously played civilisations does justice to that.

But the national identity was always constructed retrospectively. Even the design of Civs in 7 and previous titles mostly came from this retrospective pov of nowaday audience, not the real-time pov of the actual people of them. This is how the game Civilization works. And now we can also have Civs which were even not a country or nation, like Mississippi. So I'll state my 4th Age Civ choice idea as the "building identity from the piece of early history", it doesn't always mean the "exact return of old identity". I think this is not only the good description of how modern national identity formed and work, but also the good conclusion of the Civ pathway game design.

I personally don't prefer the 4th Age Civ suggestion as the regional alliance like EU, ASEAN or Pan-Africanism, because we don't have IRL Europe or Africa in the game. When you are French Empire and there are some western rivals like Germany, what's the point that you become EU without them? Or when you are Buganda which is the sole African Civ in base game, what's the point that you become Pan-Africanism Civ? Your continent may even not be the Europe or Africa in high chance.

 

[sTAPler27]

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.

I'd say there's a reason to keep the civs but not to keep their abilities, especially given how far the game goes after the base game time frame

 

[sTAPler27]

When you are French Empire and there are some western rivals like Germany, what's the point that you become EU without them?

If things like the EU are implemented they should be extensions of the diplomacy system.

 

[bonafide11]

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.

Yeah, I agree with this. If they add a new Era, I would much prefer they divide "Exploration" into two eras and make Modern a larger era that covers some later years. There is way too much history in the so-called "Exploration" era for it to fit in one era.

 

[sTAPler27]

Yeah, I agree with this. If they add a new Era, I would much prefer they divide "Exploration" into two eras and make Modern a larger era that covers some later years. There is way too much history in the so-called "Exploration" era for it to fit in one era.

I just feel like this Age 1 1/2 would be rather boring. With Antiquity everything is new and you still have to explore your own continent, Exploration is about the new continent and Modern, while a bit lacking is about strengthening what you already own. Age 1 1/2 would feel like a continuation of the first but worse as you'd already have discovered most of your continent. I think a 4th age works better becasuse like how Exploration is an extension of Antiquities exploration Contemporary/Information would be an extension of building upon what you already have as is Modern.

Along with that how much could you really fit in a vaguely Medieval centered age in the way of interesting mechanics that would feel different from the ages on either side of it. A more modern age would usher in much greater potential as 1) it would take place during a time of rapid advancement and 2) would not be cutting into periods already in the base game.

 

[Taefin]

If there is a 4th era, I’d like victory conditions to be connected to simultaneous crises (eg, agricultural collapse due to climate change, nuclear war, ai takeover of infrastructure/ weapons systems, tyranny and oppression). Not that this is likely, but a thought of how it could work, the triggered modern victory condition could determine what crisis played out and give the winner a head start toward resolving the crisis, perhaps giving all other players the opportunity to compete to resolve the crisis or oppose the resolution. A science victory by developing fusion, engaging in diplomacy, and playing the biggest part in reversing climate change would feel more immersive that watching a rocket take off at the endgame. Or a military victory by dealing the finishing blow against a rampant AI that has taken over half of the world.

I’d also like to see nuclear weapons either omitted or developed to be more than just something to blow up a few cities with in one play through and never touch again.

 

[aelf]

I just find it amusing that Singapore has been mentioned a couple of times in different places as potential modern/post-modern civ. What, do you lose all your settlements besides your capital when you switch to it?

 

[Siptah]

I just find it amusing that Singapore has been mentioned a couple of times in different places as potential modern/post-modern civ. What, do you lose all your settlements besides your capital when you switch to it?

1 city - 18 towns gameplay might be interesting?

 

[aelf]

What towns? It's just one city, really.

 

[Siptah]

What towns? It's just one city, really.

In civ 7, it would likely end up as a civ with the ability to have no other city than the capital, and all others remain towns. I don‘t see a problem with that.

 

[sTAPler27]

I just find it amusing that Singapore has been mentioned a couple of times in different places as potential modern/post-modern civ. What, do you lose all your settlements besides your capital when you switch to it?

Humankind has Singapore as a COntemporary civ and they just recieve bonuses for having all your territories under one city, so having one Capital city and everything else as Towns would be the closest equivalent

 

[moondog385]

I can...speculatively say that a fourth age focusing on 1950-present (which is a super short period of time) would be the most boring part of the game by far. I really hope that's all added onto the Modern Age. Modern literally means present so.

 

[sTAPler27]

I can...speculatively say that a fourth age focusing on 1950-present (which is a super short period of time) would be the most boring part of the game by far. I really hope that's all added onto the Modern Age. Modern literally means present so.

1. Ancient Era (4000 BC ~ 1000 BC)
2. Classical Era (1000 BC ~ 500 AD)
3. Medieval Era (500 ~ 1350)
4. Renaissance Era (1350 ~ 1725)
5. Industrial Era (1725 ~ 1890)
6. Modern Era (1890 ~ 1945)
7. Atomic Era (1945 ~ 1995)
8. Information Era (1995 ~ 2020)
9. Future Era (2020 ~ 2050)

Years Per Turn
Antiquity --40--> Classical -- 25 --> Medieval --20--> Rennaisance --10--> Industrial --5--> Modern --2--> Atomic --1--> Information --0.5--> Future

These are Civ 6's eras, The Antiquity Age is roughly the first two ages and covers 4500 years, Exploration Age covers the next 2 and spans 1225 years, and the Modern Age covers the next two and spans 220 years. The Modern Ageends over a century before the game even ends, modern does not necesarily mean present. There is already a precedent for the incriments of time to decrease as the ages continue. A Contemporary/Information age in 7 would fill the roll of the final 3 ages in 6. You could argue those aren't the most fun parts of the game but that's the whole point of Civ 7's age system, to make snowballing less boring and to make it so each age feels unique.

 

[aelf]

In civ 7, it would likely end up as a civ with the ability to have no other city than the capital, and all others remain towns. I don‘t see a problem with that.

The only problem is RL accuracy.