Would you like a new Era in the game?

[CYZ]

I would like that too. That's why I generally play on Epic setting, to make the early game last longer... but of course that just makes the late game drag more.

Unfortunately, given what (admittedly little) we know about the new units and techs, it looks like they may be doing the reverse... expanding the late game.

Yep, the only thing we really know for sure about the eras is that the industrial era is becoming longer. I like this because I dislike the modern era, so it will be further away now.

Still, with the implementation of religion it is likely that more techs will be added that are connected to faith. And those would logically be in the classical era mostly. That's what I'm hoping for because the classical era is hopelessly short.

 

[Haig]

Yep, the only thing we really know for sure about the eras is that the industrial era is becoming longer. I like this because I dislike the modern era, so it will be further away now.

Still, with the implementation of religion it is likely that more techs will be added that are connected to faith. And those would logically be in the classical era mostly. That's what I'm hoping for because the classical era is hopelessly short.

Same thoughts here, I'm happy to get the industrial era longer, and I also bet that religion expands early era a bit thru techs too.

 

[bcaiko]

I'd support the inclusion of a new Era to break things up. I agree with those who have said that the eras surrounding the "Enlightenment Era" are too long and don't really make sense where they meet.

I also agree with the folks who've been saying the Classical Era needs expansion and the Future Era needs something other than Science Victory units.

 

[ehecatzin]

Enlightment era! It feels odd to go from renaissance to Industrial without nothing in the middle, now that they are fixing naval warfare we will see if its good enough that we can hope to see an englightment era with all the naval and colonial warfare that comes with it.

Longer classical, Ancient I like as it is, but classical always feels short, not enough time to enjoy it before medieval comes around.

 

[aluelkdf]

I don't think a new era is needed. I would prefer to expand upon the eras that are already there. If there is going to be a new era, the only one I would even consider is a future era. But even then, it's speculation what techs/units would be available in the future. So it turns into more of a turn based sci-fi game than a civ game.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think one thing to consider is this. With the exception of the future era, all eras have unlocked social policies. Currently, Commerce unlocks at the Middle Ages, Freedom and Rationalism unlock at the Renaissance. The question is, if we add an Enlightenment era, which ones would have to unlock with that? And would you be willing to delay Freedom (often extremely useful for a cultural victory) until even later?

Aside from that, while I think the tiers of gunpowder infantry should be expanded to include early matchlock muskets, I do want to point out that having this extra tier of gunpowder unit is actually unprecedented in a civ game. Of course, that might very well be a good thing, but it's worth pointing out.

 

[bcaiko]

I think one thing to consider is this. With the exception of the future era, all eras have unlocked social policies. Currently, Commerce unlocks at the Middle Ages, Freedom and Rationalism unlock at the Renaissance. The question is, if we add an Enlightenment era, which ones would have to unlock with that? And would you be willing to delay Freedom (often extremely useful for a cultural victory) until even later?

I wouldn't mind pushing Rationalism back to the Enlightenment Era (which would make sense, right?)...it would make people work a little more for their science victory and balance Piety vs. Rationalism better.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Rationalism has Humanism in it, which is a Renaissance development. Also, Rationalism should logically be unlocked before Freedom. Freedom is clearly an Enlightenment development. It's the thoughts of John Locke and Voltaire reflected in Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and the intellectual thoughts of the French Revolution.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

If Freedom was to be delayed, then that'd be great, makes Cultural Victory longer.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think there is definitely a good argument for adding an "Enlightenment Era" as a bridge between the currently overextended "Renaissance" and the soon-to-be expanded Industrial Era.

The Classical era has always seemed unfairly short, but I can't really think of how they would flesh it out with more units and wonders (since the WotAW DLC already added 3 wonders, albeit many of them popping up in the Ancient era), except by splitting what's already there over more techs.

 

[MAHak2]

I dont want new eras(one could argue that the age of enlightenment is just the later stage of the renaissance).

I just want more tech tiers in the existing eras, especially in the industrial era. And not nesserarily in the classic era, there i just want an increased cost of the next medieval era techs. To represent the "dark age" or migration period, which was not known for great scientific breakthroghs or significant technical improvements.
So the classic era would be prolonged but only because it would take longer to reach the next era.

And then ofcourse the following units should have another unit in between their upgrade path:
Trireme>Caravel
Knight>Cavalry
Longswordmen>Rifleman
Crossbowmen>Rifleman

There are problably others.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I dont want new eras(one could argue that the age of enlightenment is just the later stage of the renaissance).

Actually, from a historical perspective, I'd actually argue that the Renaissance is just a latter stage of the middle ages and it was Enlightenment thinkers wanting to put those great artists in their time period that tried to suggest the Renaissance was more reasoned and less religious than it was. However, that's not really relevant for a game that deals with history in the sense of popular imagination far more than in reality.

I just want more tech tiers in the existing eras, especially in the industrial era. And not nesserarily in the classic era, there i just want an increased cost of the next medieval era techs. To represent the "dark age" or migration period, which was not known for great scientific breakthroghs or significant technical improvements.
So the classic era would be prolonged but only because it would take longer to reach the next era.

Interesting, but, in gameplay terms, that will just increase the value of a Great Scientist or the Great Library.

 

[MAHak2]

Interesting, but, in gameplay terms, that will just increase the value of a Great Scientist or the Great Library.

Well i thought about the the GS/GL exploit... maybe having you to research all classic techs before going to medieval era(no beelining).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Well i thought about the the GS/GL exploit... maybe having you to research all classic techs before going to medieval era(no beelining).

Not sure if that would be a smart idea... because currently only Civ 3 I think has that (with the exception of certain techs not required for Advancment)

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well i thought about the the GS/GL exploit... maybe having you to research all classic techs before going to medieval era(no beelining).

That would kill a lot of strategy, no? We'd be back to Civ3.

 

[Alexastor]

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.

It's called dark ages because of the lack of sources we have from that time, and not because of the way they lived or thought.

And as you said, it only goes up to the Carolingian Renaissance.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Petrarch said there were three eras, the classical era, the modern era, and the dark ages in between. If the Dark Ages refers to the area between the fall of Emperor Romulus Augustulus and the coronation of Charlemagne, that's not all that bad. Then again, the last century of the western empire wasn't really all that well-documented compared to the past.

 

[nokmirt]

Maybe the solution is to come out with a few different techtrees to choose from. One that has the standard eras, a couple more that have added eras. Players can decide for themselves which one to used based on their own preferences.

BTW someone argued that the Renaissance is part of the Medieval era. This is not true IMO. The reason there is a seperate era called the Renaissance is because, we see a distinct revival of classical antiquity, and a loosening of the rigid religious life of the Middle Ages. Learning became more profound, simply because knowledge began to pass from hand to hand more freely after the invention of the printing press. It was not just monks in their monasteries who were educated, or high born nobles anymore. More and more people were able to acquire books and writings. The ability to learn, along with the dedication to history, art, science, philosophy etc. Brought the world onto a new stage of innovation. The end of the Reconquista in Iberian Peninsula, led to another new wave of learning as latin manuscripts were deciphered and translated into other languages. The Reconquista also led to the discovery of the New World

With the Renaisscance came the Black Death, weakening the church, which had no way to fight the scourge devouring so many people who depended on belief in their faith. We see a huge battle between church and free thought. Namely the Spanish Inquisition, which resided over trials of heresy, and witchcraft, culminating in the burnings and deaths of countless people. The corruption of the church also became a huge problem. The selling of indulgences, simony, and the printing and spreading of the Bible, led to scriptures being reinterpreted by the laity. This caused new viewpoints about religion, which inevitably led to Martin Luther writing the 95 Theses and pinning them to the door of the church at Wittenburg. This lead to the Protestant Reformation. Etc, Etc, Etc.

The Renaissance was a progressive age, during which the old ways of the Medieval times fought like hell to keep things from changing. However, nothing stops progress. Progress is like nature, it always finds a way.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Maybe the solution is to come out with a few different techtrees to choose from. One that has the standard eras, a couple more that have added eras. Players can decide for themselves which one to used based on their own preferences.

BTW someone argued that the Renaissance is part of the Medieval era. This is not true IMO. The reason there is a seperate era called the Renaissance is because, we see a distinct revival of classical antiquity, and a loosening of the rigid religious life of the Middle Ages. Learning became more profound, simply because knowledge began to pass from hand to hand more freely after the invention of the printing press. It was not just monks in their monasteries who were educated, or high born nobles anymore. More and more people were able to acquire books and writings. The ability to learn, along with the dedication to history, art, science, philosophy etc. Brought the world onto a new stage of innovation. The end of the Reconquista in Iberian Peninsula, led to another new wave of learning as latin manuscripts were deciphered and translated into other languages. The Reconquista also led to the discovery of the New World

With the Renaisscance came the Black Death, weakening the church, which had no way to fight the scourge devouring so many people who depended on belief in their faith. We see a huge battle between church and free thought. Namely the Spanish Inquisition, which resided over trials of heresy, and witchcraft, culminating in the burnings and deaths of countless people. The corruption of the church also became a huge problem. The selling of indulgences, simony, and the printing and spreading of the Bible, led to scriptures being reinterpreted by the laity. This caused new viewpoints about religion, which inevitably led to Martin Luther writing the 95 Theses and pinning them to the door of the church at Wittenburg. This lead to the Protestant Reformation. Etc, Etc, Etc.

The Renaissance was a progressive age, during which the old ways of the Medieval times fought like hell to keep things from changing. However, nothing stops progress. Progress is like nature, it always finds a way.

The Renaissance was an age where superstition actually increased. There's a reason most of the art was religious. There's also a reason St. Christopher was a popular image. He's the patron saint that protects against sudden death. People thought they could survive the plague by continually keeping St. Christopher in their sight.

While it's true there's a line ending with Luther that includes Erasmus and other Renaissance thinkers, it also included Christian theological figures going back at least to Gerbert.

The Inquisition was nothing new. Let's not forget about the Albigensian Crusade. I agree about the corruption of the church leading to Luther but the very fact that indulgences were so popular demonstrates that people were very, very religious. I wouldn't conflate the Reformation time period with the Renaissance even if there is an overlap.

But perhaps this should be better reserved for the history forum. My only point is not to overstate the scientific progress of the Renaissance. History rarely, if ever, can be easily divided into ages. The Renaissance was more a period of transition than a sharp reawakening and break from the past.

 

[Deggial]

While historically (and "fluff-wise"), an era of Enlightement would be fun, I think there might be some problems when introducing an additional era.

SoPos can be shifted (not without problems, I suppose, but still), RA-costs readjusted so that the futur era's costs are not higher than right now.

But what's about CS bonuses?
- Military SC might be easy, as the frequency of unit appearance can be tweaked.
- Cultural CSs might be more difficult, as the cultural gain from era to era doesn't rise in big steps (exact numers, anybody?)
- Most problematic, as I assume, should be Maritime SCs. Their bonus is very small (per city), and the era change even smaler. So, if there is an additional era, there is no space for a "slip in", but the maximum bonus at future era has to be bigger. This *can* be a problematic, as too high food bonuses broke the game at it's release and where nerved for this reason.

Or am I too pessimistic here? Isn't there a problem at all?