Why era change is so much controversial

[Niallism]

I always find it so weird when arguments like yours simultaneously rail against western constructs of race, then embrace and subvert it by inserting black and brown in place of white. I don't know what "modern" person is being imagined here, but the only people I ever hear using concepts like black and brown in the way you do are from the 1800s and I'd hardly describe them as modern in the way you are using it to contextualise how a "modern" person might recognise these people.

Africa isnt just "black" and Asia isn't just "brown". Most of the inhabitants of Roman north Africa had a considerable genetic overlap with contemporary Anatolians. And contemporary Anatolians were for the large part descendent from the indo-European migration.

Distinctly and recognisably "black" or "brown" people would have been quite rare given the Roman empire didn't stretch to sub Saharan Africa or the southern Indian subcontinent. Such cases would have been limited to merchants and slaves basically.

The vast majority of people in the empire would have been an ethnically ambiguous indo-European olive, with a good smattering of "white" particularly in the latter years of the empire as more and more northern European influence seeped into Rome. I don't know what modern eyes look at anyone from Syria or Morocco or Italy and go "that person is brown", because most skin tones from those regions are still more white than brown and often described as "olive" or "mediterannean".

It really baffles me when people describe Septimius Severus as a black Roman emperor when he was half ethnically Roman, and the other half was a mix of Punic (Anatolian) and north African (mostly Anatolian descent). So he would have been in all likelihood as olive as the previous and next emperors, and if a modern person were presented a line up of Roman emperor's, it would be very difficult to pick out which he was.

Well it's difficult to talk about something that is a social construct without reifying it to some extent. But race being a modern social construct is extremely well documented and researched at this point that I consider it to be as settled as climate change or the earth being round. If you don't agree, there are numerous academic papers on this which can explain the issues better than I can.

I don't think the rest of your post is much to do with what I said. In fact, despite your animus, I think you are partly agreeing with my core point, if I add an addendum just to be utterly utterly clear.

Race is an unscientific invention AND the races that modern people imagine past nations to be are often incorrect (within their idea of race).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What makes this controversial is Three Ages models itself.
I'd prefer Four ages.
and Religion developments.
I don't understand why Exploration Age begins at 400 AD? and ended at 1500? Did Firaxis counts what Vikings did in the Early Middle Ages in addition to what Portuguese and Spanish, amongs other Europeans did several centuries later?
also while Antiquity can end 900 years BC and I don't have quite a problems with it. (and Romans being in the same age as Greeks, since both did actually meet and eventually Romans trumped). Exploration Age is quite problematic. especially with Normans 'coexisted' with Spanish while IRL Normans ceased to be distinct cultural groups. While they began as Vikings, they became Normans when they were in Northern France (conveniently called Normandy, the region name that still used today and even a site of several great battles in History. From Rise of Duke William, to the iconic Allies amphibious landing operations in 6th June 1944), At one point they ruled the English Channel from both sides (British Isles, and Continental Europe, and even in Sicily) eventually they stopped calling themselves as such in mid 15th Century as France won the Hundread Years War, forever denied English Kings the rights to claim Throne of France, and in addition, Norman Kings of England lost the right to rule Normandy, and that's the end of Normans). Which in turn came the Rise of Spain.

To this end this is why I'm more on Four Ages system. which Spain should be in Age 3 (i.e. Exploration Age) and Normans as Middle Ages (Age 2) Civ.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What makes this controversial is Three Ages models itself.

It's pretty understandable. Civ is a historically-themed strategy game, not historical simulator. Ages are based on gameplay needs, not exact history (you're writing alternative history anyway), so for exploration accessibility of the distant lands is the core feature. There's no point in having more than 1 age before it as they'll technically be the same.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

It's pretty understandable. Civ is a historically-themed strategy game, not historical simulator. Ages are based on gameplay needs, not exact history (you're writing alternative history anyway), so for exploration accessibility of the distant lands is the core feature. There's no point in having more than 1 age before it as they'll technically be the same.

And in real game Age II ends BEFORE the actual High Sea Exploration Hype actually begins.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And in real game Age II ends BEFORE the actual High Sea Exploration Hype actually begins.

If you have Age2 on the same homelands as the first age, there's not enough gameplay difference to make them separate ages.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Because Europe had three main Age shift and the whole game is modelled around that and not in a consistent way?
It might be one thing, when in reality it is just the forced Civilization switch probably...
(note I said probably--- gunpowder started the industrial revolution for every Civ on Earth probably 1000X times more quickly and effectively than the discovery of electricity...)
(In antiquity it much more difficult to find a single crisis cause for everyone on the planet... I cannot blame anyone for making it a 5 stage victory points projection... in fact it is a genial solution... IMO)
Maybe, but just maybe, these victory points / Age switchers should change based from some other factors???

Europe ---- Antiquity-Classical/ Feudalism-Dark age/ French Revolution-Illuminism-Modern Age basically...

Middle East ---- Antiquity-Classical/ Golden Age / Colonialism-Indipendance

Black Africa ---- A complete mess of uninterrupted Colonialism-Revolution

Americas ---- More or less like Black Africa except with Hollywood

Asia ---- Antiquity-Classical/ Mongol-Aryan invasion (unless you DO support-believe the Aryan theory Smithsonian-craft) / Colonialism-Revolution-Indipendance

It is a very delicate balance devs have struck here... and I'm giving an interpretation to the OP based on a broad generalization of my understanding of the mechanics...
whereas in real gameplay it could be just a 0.5% of importance, with 90% changing from player to player on completely random other factors of any kind...

 

[AD1730]

What makes this controversial is Three Ages models itself.
I'd prefer Four ages.
and Religion developments.
I don't understand why Exploration Age begins at 400 AD? and ended at 1500? Did Firaxis counts what Vikings did in the Early Middle Ages in addition to what Portuguese and Spanish, amongs other Europeans did several centuries later?
also while Antiquity can end 900 years BC and I don't have quite a problems with it. (and Romans being in the same age as Greeks, since both did actually meet and eventually Romans trumped). Exploration Age is quite problematic. especially with Normans 'coexisted' with Spanish while IRL Normans ceased to be distinct cultural groups. While they began as Vikings, they became Normans when they were in Northern France (conveniently called Normandy, the region name that still used today and even a site of several great battles in History. From Rise of Duke William, to the iconic Allies amphibious landing operations in 6th June 1944), At one point they ruled the English Channel from both sides (British Isles, and Continental Europe, and even in Sicily) eventually they stopped calling themselves as such in mid 15th Century as France won the Hundread Years War, forever denied English Kings the rights to claim Throne of France, and in addition, Norman Kings of England lost the right to rule Normandy, and that's the end of Normans). Which in turn came the Rise of Spain.

To this end this is why I'm more on Four Ages system. which Spain should be in Age 3 (i.e. Exploration Age) and Normans as Middle Ages (Age 2) Civ.

I've long said four ages would help smooth over some of the very odd civ transitions, but typically someone comes in and says that would make the game too long. I think that objection loses its power if the rumored future age expansion becomes a reality. I'd much prefer a medieval age to a future age, but that's just me.

 

[queenpea]

I've long said four ages would help smooth over some of the very odd civ transitions, but typically someone comes in and says that would make the game too long. I think that objection loses its power if the rumored future age expansion becomes a reality. I'd much prefer a medieval age to a future age, but that's just me.

I was much more open to a fourth age before the launch than I am now. In most modern games, I’m just thinking: oh when will this end? I don’t think I would have the stomach for a fourth age.

However, this may just be due to the current state of the modern age? The quality of ages seems to decline from Antiquity. Exploration is full of imperfections and annoyances.

If they manage to fix it all, the idea of a fourth age seems more palatable.

 

[j51]

I can’t fully figure out why exploration is less fun than antiquity but it is. Maybe it’s more railroaded? Maybe it’s that it’s missing so many of the most iconic polities from that period (Byzantium, feudal Japan, Aztecs/Mexica, some variation of Turks, HRE).

Modern I think could be really fun if it were just victory based on points. (Filling out the tech tree more could help too). I’m gonna try playing it by hitting the “one more turn” button and with the mod that only ends ages with future tech. I think all of modern’s features could really stretch and be fun then.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I've long said four ages would help smooth over some of the very odd civ transitions, but typically someone comes in and says that would make the game too long. I think that objection loses its power if the rumored future age expansion becomes a reality. I'd much prefer a medieval age to a future age, but that's just me.

me tooo

 

[AD1730]

I was much more open to a fourth age before the launch than I am now. In most modern games, I’m just thinking: oh when will this end? I don’t think I would have the stomach for a fourth age.

However, this may just be due to the current state of the modern age? The quality of ages seems to decline from Antiquity. Exploration is full of imperfections and annoyances.

If they manage to fix it all, the idea of a fourth age seems more palatable.

Yeah, I get that. Which is part of the reason why I've always thought putting another era in the midgame would be preferable to another lategame one. Obviously, adding something to the midgame is more difficult post-release than tacking something onto the end. But, given the amount of change many of us believe is necessary for this game, I think putting in another midgame could be done as part of those.

 

[Phrozen]

I would of liked leader transitions between the ages rather than civ transitions. I do think a fourth age will eventually be in the game whether that is splitting out Exploration to Feudal (iron age collapse to Hussite Crusades roughly) or a Cold War era from 1950-199x roughly.

 

[MutilationWave]

I was much more open to a fourth age before the launch than I am now. In most modern games, I’m just thinking: oh when will this end? I don’t think I would have the stomach for a fourth age.

However, this may just be due to the current state of the modern age? The quality of ages seems to decline from Antiquity. Exploration is full of imperfections and annoyances.

If they manage to fix it all, the idea of a fourth age seems more palatable.

I think one of the reasons modern sucks so much is that you're no longer building towards something. I would prefer a fourth age before exploration but if we get one after modern that would make modern important to get legacy points and build towards a win in the postmodern/victory age.

 

[Kwami]

If you have Age2 on the same homelands as the first age, there's not enough gameplay difference to make them separate ages.

I think this is exactly it. Where are you going to settle new cities in the second age if you're still stuck on the homeland? What's the second age going to be about once you remove explore and expand as options?

 

[sixty4half]

I've long said four ages would help smooth over some of the very odd civ transitions, but typically someone comes in and says that would make the game too long. I think that objection loses its power if the rumored future age expansion becomes a reality.

No, the argument strengthens if we get an Information Age. Having Ant, Medieval, Exp, Mod, and Info ages would make games ridiculously long. I know some people like epic and marathon games but don't force that on the rest of us.

Edit: Just for context, I've been winning Civ 5 and 6 games between T150 and 225. Those aren't event "fast" victory times. Civ 7 already takes twice that and you're advocating for a 66% increase when you ask for a Medieval and a Future Age.

 

[AD1730]

No, the argument strengthens if we get an Information Age. Having Ant, Medieval, Exp, Mod, and Info ages would make games ridiculously long. I know some people like epic and marathon games but don't force that on the rest of us.

Edit: Just for context, I've been winning Civ 5 and 6 games between T150 and 225. Those aren't event "fast" victory times. Civ 7 already takes twice that and you're advocating for a 66% increase when you ask for a Medieval and a Future Age.

I'm not asking for a future age. Read the comment again.

 

[sixty4half]

I did. You said the argument loses its power (your words not mine) if we get an future age.

I am saying the argument strengthens if we get one.

 

[AD1730]

I did. You said the argument loses its power (your words not mine) if we get an future age.

I am saying the argument strengthens if we get one.

And you're misreading my comment. I'm not asking for five ages.

 

[MrRadar]

Speaking of era/age transitions. This is what I was in Antiquity, in terms of government:

Spoiler :

And this is what I get to read as narrative upon my transition to Exploration:

Spoiler :

At this point I could type a lot of text in capital letters, all of which would be not suitable for publishing, but I'll just say, my immersion is completely shattered and my would be pleasant evening of Civ7 on this new 1.2.0 build is totally ruined. I'll go and seek tranquility in some other game tonight.

 

[MutilationWave]

Speaking of era/age transitions. This is what I was in Antiquity, in terms of government:

Spoiler :

And this is what I get to read as narrative upon my transition to Exploration:

Spoiler :

At this point I could type a lot of text in capital letters, all of which would be not suitable for publishing, but I'll just say, my immersion is completely shattered and my would be pleasant evening of Civ7 on this new 1.2.0 build is totally ruined. I'll go and seek tranquility in some other game tonight.

I hate that that ruins the game for you. I just went into exploration from Rome myself, that's part of the Rome narrative. They could have easily made that more generic, or a check to see if you were a despot and rewrite the event text. It's lazy and disconnected. The people writing the events might not even have been aware of antiquity government choices.

If the narratives are trees they might have two branches, and this one is just a stick, laying on the ground unconnected to anything. There's way too much of that.

For me personally I don't mind as much as you, as long as they continue focusing on improving the mechanics. But yeah add it to the pile of unfinished crap. Releasing a finished game would have been ideal but we're long past that. I love this game and I dislike stuff like this at the same time. There's a lot of left hand doesn't know that right hand is doing going on.