why does my civgame say 1610 ad in the modern age of tanks, jets, and navy seals?

[Advance]

this technology didn't exist in 1610 ad

 

[CajNatalie]

It's a game, not real life, please get over that fact.
A lot of things that happen in Civ can be historically inaccurate, or historically accurate, all on a game-by-game basis.

Plus, you're probably playing on Settler/Chieftain/Warlord, where you get a bonus towards everything you do including science, I think.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

It's a game, not real life, please get over that fact.
A lot of things that happen in Civ can be historically inaccurate, or historically accurate, all on a game-by-game basis.

Plus, you're probably playing on Settler/Chieftain/Warlord, where you get a bonus towards everything you do including science, I think.

40% tech cost on settler.

 

[Advance]

It's a game, not real life, please get over that fact.
A lot of things that happen in Civ can be historically inaccurate, or historically accurate, all on a game-by-game basis.

Plus, you're probably playing on Settler/Chieftain/Warlord, where you get a bonus towards everything you do including science, I think.

your right. its a game. i didn't know the dates (or other things) could be inaccurate. since the game has been called a 'history in the making'. nvm.

 

[TLF]

The dates advance turn by turn, not according to any one players advancements.

You have obviously placed much tech advancement into military techs and , so, have advanced militarily much more rapidly than than historical reality.

If everything was going to play out historically, then why play the game. It sounds like you would rather watch a movie.

"Hey, the Germans won WW2. This game is silly."
If we know who has to win or lose a particular war, why fight it in a game?

When did everyone becomes such literalists?

 

[Advance]

If everything was going to play out historically, then why play the game. It sounds like you would rather watch a movie.

"Hey, the Germans won WW2. This game is silly."
If we know who has to win or lose a particular war, why fight it in a game?

When did everyone becomes such literalists?

my question was asked from a beginner point of view. expect more questions like it in the future

 

[Derakon]

your right. its a game. i didn't know the dates (or other things) could be inaccurate. since the game has been called a 'history in the making'. nvm.

It's a history in the making, not the history in the making. Ever read alternative-history fiction? Things turn out differently.

 

[TLF]

my question was asked from a beginner point of view. expect more questions like it in the future

I didn't mean to sound demeaning, though, reading my post I can see that it sounds that way.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

It's a history in the making, not the history in the making. Ever read alternative-history fiction? Things turn out differently.

Like American buddhists in RFC.

 

[Tristan_C]

In a game where Abe Lincoln runs slavery, Gandhi stockpiles nukes, and Gilgamesh goes to space, expect the unexpected

 

[karadoc]

Whoa. Such hostile responses.

This is the answer: "The dates advance turn by turn, not according to any one players advancements."

All the other stuff ('get over it', 'then why play the game', and so on) are a bit too anti-newbie for my liking. The dude just asked why the date was so low, it's not like he was attacking our morality or something.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Nope, save those sorts of responses for G-Max in the diplomacy thread

 

[danjuno]

Whoa. Such hostile responses.

That's because they are human.

 

[xenex]

I wonder how the tech rate would go if you were to research everything on the tech tree from left to right.I wonder how much commerce you would need to make all the techs be discovered around the real date.


Then again, I think there are places in the tech tree where two techs that are in the same position from left to right, were discovered many years apart from eachother.

 

[Derakon]

Just going straight top-to-bottom left-to-right wouldn't really be optimal, but it also wouldn't slow you down too badly overall (especially if you keep trading for techs). Get a large enough empire and you could still tech ridiculously quickly compared to actual history.

 

[Cristoval]

It is because your civ is not heavily conflicted because there are no plagues, and diseases, not enough war, or any sort of wane. No dark age. That is why many games you will have tanks by the 1700s.

 

[xenex]

Well my point wasn't about going really fast, that's not that hard, but about going fast enough to learn all the techs at the dates they were discovered.

To make it realistic you would not be allowed to trade for techs, not until the civs near you have known it for X number of years at least to take into account how in reality it would spread eventually but that you wouldn't instantly know the tech just because a civ half way around the world got it.

I wasnt thinking of speed but of realism, I can imagine that if you had too much commerce you would have to lower and maybe even stop your reaserch in order to not learn the tech too soon.


Doubt that I would play it, because a game like that would be too limited I think, but isn't there a mod that locks the tech tree advancement at certain parts , like say Renisance era and modern era until the actual year where that era started.

I know with technicalities it would be hard seeing as not all the eras are marked by a year per say but by discoveries, but that would be something the modder would have figured out.

Im talking a bit much, but I think if such a mod exists the OP would be happy with it seeing as he wants realism over fun.