KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
They do have effects.. RA costs, CS benefits.
Would you like a new Era in the game?
- Thread starter Haig
- Start date
They do have effects.. RA costs, CS benefits.
Oohforf
Praise loud, blame soft.
Yes, I would love to see the Enlightenment Era.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Speaking of Eras, I wish music, leaderheads and more details wer eput in effect era-specific, oh how I hate the constant recycled music for all eras 
. I also miss seeing Augustus Ceasar in a suit for Modern era xD.
. I also miss seeing Augustus Ceasar in a suit for Modern era xD.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
argh, yes, yes! Why not? It's fun, and 'realistic' xD
But still they could add era-specific music like Civ 4 (and 3). I really barely ever notice changes in the landscape in 5 at all.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
I think the leaders looked overally ugly in Civ 3, I mean Hannibal look awful, Isabella looked like a man and Catherine looked like a generic grandma... I even think Monty looked like a woman at one point.
I agree with extending the classical era and adding a new era between the Renaissance and the Industrial eras (I personally like the Enlightenment).
If this new era were introduced, I would like to see riflemen/rifling pushed into this era to give musketmen a longer life span. Two techs is just not enough.
I also don't care for the placement of pikemen before longswordsman since they were most prevalent during the Renaissance when musketmen were vulnerable to mounted units or any sort of shock attack. Pushing them up into the late medieval or early renaissance (with a small combat boost to 12 or 13) would give me a better feeling of CiV's depiction of 14th-16th century warfare. This would be easier to accomplish with any addition to the tech tree which should be coming. Though there of course would be a problem for those without iron having to wait longer for a decent unit. just my two cents.
If this new era were introduced, I would like to see riflemen/rifling pushed into this era to give musketmen a longer life span. Two techs is just not enough.
I also don't care for the placement of pikemen before longswordsman since they were most prevalent during the Renaissance when musketmen were vulnerable to mounted units or any sort of shock attack. Pushing them up into the late medieval or early renaissance (with a small combat boost to 12 or 13) would give me a better feeling of CiV's depiction of 14th-16th century warfare. This would be easier to accomplish with any addition to the tech tree which should be coming. Though there of course would be a problem for those without iron having to wait longer for a decent unit. just my two cents.
As long as the classical era is expanded by at least one row (it's only one now...) I''m fine with this. Medieval actually being longer than classical on the tech tree pisses me off, very little happened progress wise in the dark ages (hence the name) and alot happened in the classical era.
That's most important for me. But I'd also feel that something is missing between rennaisance and industrial. Imperial seems like the most logical to me (enlightenment is something I link with rennaisance). Imperial makes sense because in this era many international empires were created (mostly colonial). To me it makes sense like this:
Ancient: The start of human civilization
Classical: Sort of an early enlightenment, people started thinking about why we are here and such.
Medieval: Somewhat of a standstil, many of the ideas from the classical era dissapear to the background. The world is however very stable in this period.
Rennaisance: Through the start of science as we know it a new enlightenment starts. Inttelectuals look back to the classical era and start ''thinking'' and researching again.
Imperial: The rennaisance allows new ways to look at the world and allows for new discoveries. New parts of the world as discovered and colonies are founded. Increased focus on wealth.
Industrial: Wealth and science create a more scientific vision on society and economy. This increases production. For the common people society becomes more mechanic.
Modern: Focus shifts from producing to consuming. People become much more individualistic. Science and wealth are important focusses.
So to put it in civ v terms:
Ancient: Focus on religion and culture, lack of focus on happiness and science.
Classical: Focus on religion, happiness and science. Lack of focus on growth.
Medieval: Focus on growth, stability (through happiness) and warfare. Lack of focus on science.
Rennaisance: Focus on science and wealth. Lack of focus on production and warfare.
Imperial: Focus on expansion and warfare. Lack of focus on production and culture.
Industrial: Focus mostly on production and warfare. Lack of focus on happiness.
Modern: Focus on happiness, science and wealth. Lack of focus on religion.
Man, what did I just poste?
That's most important for me. But I'd also feel that something is missing between rennaisance and industrial. Imperial seems like the most logical to me (enlightenment is something I link with rennaisance). Imperial makes sense because in this era many international empires were created (mostly colonial). To me it makes sense like this:
Ancient: The start of human civilization
Classical: Sort of an early enlightenment, people started thinking about why we are here and such.
Medieval: Somewhat of a standstil, many of the ideas from the classical era dissapear to the background. The world is however very stable in this period.
Rennaisance: Through the start of science as we know it a new enlightenment starts. Inttelectuals look back to the classical era and start ''thinking'' and researching again.
Imperial: The rennaisance allows new ways to look at the world and allows for new discoveries. New parts of the world as discovered and colonies are founded. Increased focus on wealth.
Industrial: Wealth and science create a more scientific vision on society and economy. This increases production. For the common people society becomes more mechanic.
Modern: Focus shifts from producing to consuming. People become much more individualistic. Science and wealth are important focusses.
So to put it in civ v terms:
Ancient: Focus on religion and culture, lack of focus on happiness and science.
Classical: Focus on religion, happiness and science. Lack of focus on growth.
Medieval: Focus on growth, stability (through happiness) and warfare. Lack of focus on science.
Rennaisance: Focus on science and wealth. Lack of focus on production and warfare.
Imperial: Focus on expansion and warfare. Lack of focus on production and culture.
Industrial: Focus mostly on production and warfare. Lack of focus on happiness.
Modern: Focus on happiness, science and wealth. Lack of focus on religion.
Man, what did I just poste?
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
Not sure about this. I'm not against the idea of an Enlightenment Era ('Imperial' doesn't work) in principle, but I feel they would have to add a *lot* of new units and technologies to make it viable. The Classical Era, as has been said, needs to be extended. I would much rather see a sci-fi-esque Future Era first.
blackcatatonic
Queen of Meme
apocalypse105
Deity
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,705
Muskets where aearly Arquebus wich is wierd why they choose the minuteman and janissaries as unique unit...
Androrc the Orc
Emperor
Speaking of Eras, I wish music, leaderheads and more details wer eput in effect era-specific, oh how I hate the constant recycled music for all eras
Great idea! I miss that from Civ3.
I didn't, although my choice of words is rather poor. I guess what I rather meant knowledge and progress wasn't highly appreciated in this period of time.
TheMarshmallowBear
Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
That will only happen through mods.
Despite me wishing there was a proper Futuristic Era, the fact that game ends by the end Modern Era, means there's no need for a Future Era, th eonly reason they could do that is if they were to make a new victory, and force people to start at Modern Eras or such.
Monthar
Deity
I don't think Imperial works as well as Colonial for the name of the period from Muskets to Industrial. After all, that's when the European nations were establishing colonies all over the Americas.
Colonial should start with Navigation and Cannons. However, some additional techs would need to be put in before both, so as not to cut the Renaissance down too much.
Colonial should start with Navigation and Cannons. However, some additional techs would need to be put in before both, so as not to cut the Renaissance down too much.
Historicly it makes sense to call it colonial. But in Civ V it is way too easy (on pangea maps even very likely) not to have colonies. So a colonial area without colonies doesn't make much sense to me. That's why I prefer Imperial Era. It suggests a period of new expansion (which could be colonies) but still sounds appropiate otherwise.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
It was called the Dark Ages because of Italian snobbery in the Renaissance, not because of historical accuracy. I love Petrarch as a poet, but his historical knowledge here is simply wrong. That's why no reputable historian would use the term Dark Ages for the entirety of the Middle Ages. At most, you'll have it apply to the period between the fall of Rome in the west and the Carolingian Renaissance.
The Middle Ages was known for its advances in architecture, military technology, improvements in many areas of agriculture, etc. Once the classic philosophers were rediscovered, there was a tremendous surge in intellectual thinking. There also was stronger societal integration in the Middle Ages than during the end of the Roman Empire.
This, of course, isn't counting the technological advances in China and the Middle East.
