What each era covers

[Ornen]

Based on what we know so far, I would expect the eras to roughly cover the following periods of history:

• Ancient: 4000 BC to 800 AD
• Exploration: 800 AD to 1800 AD
• Modern: 1800 AD to 2050 AD

We've seen the front of the Exploration era tech tree. It starts with three techs we can associate with the Islamic Golden Age (Machinery, Astronomy, Cartography), which can be placed roughly 800-1100 AD. The second batch of techs (Castls, Heraldry, Feudalism, Guilds) are as High Medieval as it gets, and can be dated to roughly 900-1100 AD.

We also know that the Shawnee are an Exploration era civ. With Tecumseh being their associated leader, it's safe to date them up to 1800 at least — which means the Exploration era lasts at least this far. (but probably not a lot farther.)

 

[Krajzen]

I kinda like this age system of Firaxis for its audacity - just complete rejection of historical and commonly recognized age divisions, let's go for something that is optimal for the pacing, logic and gameplay of our ingame universe. There go all discussions of endless minutiae whether we should have three or four modern ages, and whether one beings at 1945 or 1960. I also really like how it scales "modern" (industrial) era back from it being seriously overstretched by civ6's crazy overrepresentation of 20th and 21st centuries.

I really like your observation that the three opening tech can be moved back to the early medieval era - ironically despite loving Islamic Middle Ages I have automatically associated them with eurocentrism and much later medieval Europe
My personal preference would be ancient era ending around 500-600 AD, since it would neatly fit with a lot of historical transitions around this time: fall of the Western Roman empire and establishment of new peoples, transformation of Byzantium, Slavs and Turks rising, Islam coming very soon, end of Classical India, rise of Tang dynasty, civilization developing in West Africa and Malayas etc etc. Oh well.

One big question is when exactly does "modern era" begin: with French revolution and Napoleonic Wars, Congress of Vienna, or 1848? It is important for example regarding which era does Napoleon go to.

It is worth noting that a lot of Native Americans groups could actually be put in the modern era due to them lasting all the way till late 19th century. So could countless African and Asian precolonial states, as the second wave of colonialism only went since 1880s, so as strange as it feels you could have say Zulu and other peoples of the interior as "modern" if we go by dates and no tech advancement level... Which, to be fair is an option and separate question: if you have "technically backwards" civ in the forward thinking era, does it go by technology or chronology?

 

[Leyrann]

I kinda like this age system of Firaxis for its audacity - just complete rejection of historical and commonly recognized age divisions, let's go for something that is optimal for the pacing, logic and gameplay of our ingame universe.

I really like it as well. They explicitly compared it with the narrative ordering of a book - or a series of books, and that's actually a framework that you can apply very well to pretty much all creative productions that contain a form of progression (books, movies, music, games, etc). It is inherently engaging and thus fun to participate with.

The Middle Ages might not be a breakpoint historically, but they were a breakpoint narratively. Great empires of old fractured and gave way to smaller states looking to make their own way. Of course, there's a bit of European focus in that specific view, but it's not as if other parts of the world haven't seen similar events, even if it might have been a few centuries earlier or later. And the ones that perhaps didn't see it at all... they still got their breakpoint when foreigners with more advanced technology arrived - in the New World, the breakpoint between Antiquity and Exploration is 1492, even though in Europe it could be as early as the fifth or sixth century depending on what you count.

One big question is when exactly does "modern era" begin: with French revolution and Napoleonic Wars, Congress of Vienna, or 1848? It is important for example regarding which era does Napoleon go to.

I would argue the modern era should start with a combination of the various forms of upheaval we saw in the time around Napoleon: Invention of the steam engine, innovations in warfare, cultural views from enlightenment, and so on.

I don't really see any precise date to put on it, and to be honest I think there shouldn't be one in the first place. In the United States it's as early as 1776 with the constitution, in France it's 1789 with the French Revolution, in some countries it's 1848 with their revolutions, and in yet other places it could be even later.

As for Napoleon, I'd say he's one of the drivers of the change, and should thus be a Modern leader, same with e.g. Ben Franklin. Although there's an alternative way to view it: If this initial upheaval is considered to still be part of the Age of Exploration, then the people who played a major role in it should be part of that Age too. Perhaps they could even have a leader bonus that (either through a specific mechanic or due to the natural interaction with game elements) gives them a benefit specifically in the crisis of the Age of Exploration.

 

[Lord Lakely]

From what I understood, basically:

Antiquity: everything up to the split of Rome in its Western and Eastern Empires
Exploration: everything from that point up to the discovery of the Steam Engine
Modern: everything after the discovery of the Steam Engine.

Any Civ of some note that exists within the confines of one age (and that is most of them) would appear as a potential Civ for that Age. Even a linear Civ such as China and Japan can be split up into three pieces as every dynasty or period of their history had distinct differences.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Based on the Youtuber videos, it would appear that the end of an Age is caused by something borrowed from Stellaris: crises. As you reach the end of an Age, you are faced with some crisis you must overcome to end the Age and move on (or not, if you've chosen to play an "only one age" game). So, from the videos, yes, the Romans face the disintegration of their empire at the end of the Age of Antiquity, which means that the start of the next Age must come roughly with the switch from the ancient civs of the world (Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, Rome, China) to the period of instability that was created by the great migration of steppe peoples (Mongols, Bulgars, etc.). Which means that the end of the Age of Exploration is probably the crises brought on by the incipient Industrial Revolution. I'd place that much closer to the 1848 revolutions than anything earlier.

 

[Haig]

I think 2nd age crisis could be some sort of "Napoleonic wars" type grand wars between alliances and proxies.

 

[Ornen]

Now that I know about crises, it looks like the timing is something like...

• Antiquity: 4000 BC - 800 AD
• Antiquity/Crisis: 400 AD - 800 AD
• Discovery: 800 AD - 1800ish AD
• Discovery/Crisis: 1750 - 1800ish AD
• Modern: 1800ish-2050ish AD

They haven't revealed much about the Discovery crisis and transition to Modern era, but I'm hoping it's less about expanding the map (like the transition to Discovery) and more about revolutions and the dissolution of early colonial empires as the first post-colonial states arise, going into the modern era.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

It looks like the game ends not in 2050, but 1950. Ed did say the modern era ends with 'splitting the atom', which implies that the final endgame is going to be a WW2-like scenario, culminating with the game being won by whoever drops the first nuclear bomb on an enemy target

 

[stealth_nsk]

If the top techs of exploration era are gunpowder and urban planning, I expect it to end around 1600 with crisis, probably, till 1700. So, the exploration crisis is, probably, more about British civil wars with Cromwell than about French revolution.

 

[ponyryov]

I feel like the original reveal trailer strongly suggests that Modern Era begins with the steam engine. The trailer is (loosely) divided into 3 segments, with the final beginning when the camera pans up from the ship and into the train. So, I would guess this is the dividing point.

As to Exploration Age, this is harder to pinpoint, but there's clearly a transition in both scenery and music after the Mongol / China battle.

 

[wesplaysciv]

It looks like the game ends not in 2050, but 1950. Ed did say the modern era ends with 'splitting the atom', which implies that the final endgame is going to be a WW2-like scenario, culminating with the game being won by whoever drops the first nuclear bomb on an enemy target

I think it's unlikely the base game won't include the classic space race science victory, but they have revealed very little about the last two ages so far...

 

[ombak]

I think it's unlikely the base game won't include the classic space race science victory, but they have revealed very little about the last two ages so far...

After all, we've already seen a rocket in gameplay footage, suggesting the space race is on.

 

[Infixo]

• Ancient: 4000 BC to 800 AD
• Exploration: 800 AD to 1800 AD
• Modern: 1800 AD to 2050 AD

They said that Modern is till the discovery of atom, and then there was an atomic cloud on the screen. Imho Modern Age could end around ~1950 thus leaving a place for 4th Age in one of the Expansinons.
4th Age would cover old Information and Future Era, and would allow to introduce virtally every modern civ / nation / country.

 

[Infixo]

After all, we've already seen a rocket in gameplay footage, suggesting the space race is on.

Since each Age can be played separately, then perhaps win conditions could exist separately for each victory type per age. So, Scientific Victory could be possible even in first 2 ages.
For 3rd age it could be just "send a satellite" which happened ~1960, and for 4th age it could be "interstellar journey", as in civ6.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

Age of Exploration is an interesting name. Islamic geography begins in roughly the 8th century - with major explorations taking place between the 9th-12th centuries. Chinese Exploration in the 1400s and of course the European exploration that followed. However we were still only reaching Antarctica in the 1800s.

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Since each Age can be played separately, then perhaps win conditions could exist separately for each victory type per age. So, Scientific Victory could be possible even in first 2 ages.
For 3rd age it could be just "send a satellite" which happened ~1960, and for 4th age it could be "interstellar journey", as in civ6.

Except that there are only 3 ages.

 

[Binkov]

While Firaxis did indicate ages could be played as stand alone games, various players that got to play the game for a few hours and who finished the first age, did point out that there is NO traditional victory at the end of first age. My guess is there are some indicators as to who deals with the end age crisis the best and then the player who does best is the winner. Or perhaps there is a simple ladder when it comes to tech, military, culture and other achievements so you can look for yourself where you are on that ladder and decide if you did well or if you're the winner.
It's only in the last age that the traditional science/culture/domination victory comes into play.

So... I'd say that while you COULD technically play ages as stand alone games - most people won't, as they won't find it as a satisfying enough experience.

 

[Infixo]

Except that there are only 3 ages.

At launch. I referenced my previous post. There is a place for 4th age in an expac. Monetization… just like future era was also added in an expac in civ6.

 

[Ornen]

they've shown rockets in promoting the game, and Beach has been explicit the game will include global warming. so you can expect it to extend into the very near future

crisis mechanics sound very appealing to me so I'd be interested in them developing them into their own mini-age. something like

• Antiquity 4000 BC - 400 AD
• Dark age 400 - 1000 AD
• Exploration 1000 - 1750 AD
• Revolutions 1750 - 1850
• Modern 1850 - 2050

 

[Olleus]

I have to say, the names for the eras are kind of confusing. They're clearly taken from Eurocentric historiography (unsurprisingly) but applied in a very unusual way. Traditionally, "Ancient" is everything up ~400 AD and "Modern" is everything after ~1400 AD. Age of Discovery would be typically used as a rough synonym for Renaissance, which is itself a subset of Modern (aka, 1400 - 1700 AD), rather than a preceding age.

Instead they've used "Age of Discovery" to refer to technologies that are typically understood as Medieval. Which is odd because there wasn't a lot of discovery being done at that time, either geographically or scientifically. Not that there was substantially less of it happening than before, but the Hellenistic Kingdoms or Han China or Mauryan India seem to me to be a lot more exploratory than, say, the HRE or Umayyad Caliphate. I do understand why they didn't use "Medieval" or (shudder) "Dark Ages": those are terms that only make sense in Europe, and only in a real-timeline Europe which (in the traditional view) was seen as a stagnating period between the peaks of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. But "Discovery" seems like a uniquely confusing name. Even with all it's flaws, Medieval would make more sense IMO.

Now because they've used "Discovery" for the middle era, does that mean that it will extend to what is traditionally called the Age of Discovery? Which would In turn means that the "Modern" age would start later than what historians call Modernity. To borrow from the Germans, would it represent Moderne rather than Neuzeit? Will it start with the Enlightenment (~1700)? The Industrial Revolution (~1850?) Something else? My money is on the early 1800s, because it means that the US/French revolutions can be used as templates for a crisis, and the industrial revolution naturally opens up a lot of new resources and buildings. It also fits with the general Civilization vibe of having a "telescoping" view of history, with more attention being paid in each year of the recent past than the distance past.

Also, that tech tree is weird. Astronomy surely belongs to the bronze age, not ~1000AD. Similarly for architecture and town planning, which are such vague concepts that they've been around since literally time immemorial. Still, at the end of the day, these are all just semantic issues with names rather than actual gameplay mechanics.

Still, if it was up to me I'd rather split it up a little more as:

• Antiquity (4000 BC - 300 AD)
  • Crisis of the 3rd Century, aka, Barbarian Invasion or New Religion (Christianity, Islam) Crisis
• Medieval (300 AD - 1300 AD)
  • Mongol or Black Death Crisis
• Discovery (1300 - 1800 AD)
  • US / French Revolution Crisis
• Modern (1800 onwards)
  • Global Warming / AI / Nuclear War Crisis (if there is an end game crisis)

Which is one more age than currently planned, but roughly matches a (Eurocentric at least) rhythm of history. And every age is about half the real-world duration of the previous one, which is nice. Although it is rather abusing the term Medieval


---

On a mechanic level, what happens if another civilization makes you progress to the next age before you've researched everything in this one? Do you simply never get those techs? Get them for free? Is there a long term benefit to having techs from past eras, or is it all obsolete? I'm thinking of something like you have spearman, never get the pikemen tech, and then are thrust into the modern age and have to keep your spearman around until you get machine guns, living you hugely vulnerable for a long time.