Eras in Civ4?

[Jaguar]

This is a vital question.

I vote yes.

[Spiffor]

I didn't vote, because I think we need a hybrid system. Eras are a good idea, as they allow a very-welcome change in graphics. They also make it simple to start a game with a given set of technologies at disposal.
However, the main weakness of the era system is the lack of flexibility in the tech tree. It is impossible to develop, say, monotheism without first knowing alphabet, or steam engine without first knowing astronomy In short, the era system makes it somehow impossible to really rush on a path (builder or warmonger) at the expense of the other.

A hybrid system would be best: one where the passage from an era to another is very clear, graphically wise and gameplay-wise (if some gameplay features are associated with an era); and such system wouldn't bind the player to research techs in all fields.

[LDiCesare]

I hate eras.
There's no reason to tie one discovery in one area to another totally unrelated one.
Incas had Astronomy without having iron working. A landbound civ should be unable to develop sailing techs but be able to progress in other areas. Why should they have to research navigation when they live in a desert? Just so they can research gunpowder? What's the rationale there?
As far as graphics are concerned, civ2ToT changed graphics when certain techs were discovered (invention for instance), so you don't need eras to change graphics.

[Paddy]

I hope that with Civ 4 they completely rethink this ERA issue.

I feel that it is a waste of time, agreeing with LDiCesare above.

[Spiffor]

LDiCesare and Paddy:
I think we should not ditch the era system too quickly. In Civ3, the idea hasn't been used at full potential, as it only served to change graphics and dumb down the tech tree. But there could be good things from having Eras, if the main problem (lack of technological flexibility) is adressed.

The obvious idea that comes to mind is for the setup of quick games. Since Firaxis is now trying to make it possible to play 2-hours long games, more elements from Age of Empires-like games could be used for the fast player. With eras, it makes it possible from the setup of the game on what techs will be immediately available (let's say I want fast action with Tanks, I'll start a game from "modern era" on).
Don't get me wrong, I'm no saying I like fast games, I way prefer the epic ones. But a part of the audience does like short games, so eras are valuable to them.

Another idea could be to tie some gameplay features with an era. Maybe "enslave" units could only work during ancient times, or maybe you get a small production bonus from being in the modern era... I don't have any precise ideas, those are just (lousy) examples of how an "era" could have a real impact.

Your hate of the era system comes from the fact it was badly used, it was purely tech-related, and it forbade you to research techs as you wanted. If this limitation can be lifted, then I think the era system can do more good than harm.

[Fosse]

The era system was bad because it was poorly used, purely tech related, and forbade you from researching as you wanted, true. However, it was also a bad idea.

Everything that you suggest the era system could do, Spiffor, can be done without it. Does Firaxis want to make starting in the modern age an option? They can just select the techs that everyone has during "Modern Start." "Enslave" can work not depending on the era, but on whether or not certain techs have been researched, or milestones reached.

With eras we will always face the problem of one tech per age leading to all or none of the first techs of the next age. History has never ever sliced itself into neat little categories for us, so that the people can say, "Alright, now it's the industrial age... guess we should go about researching industrialization, huh?"

A well designed tech tree is the way to go; eras should place in a good Civ.

One vote, No.

[Kuciwalker]

While you may disagree about where they sliced, eras has a significant advantage - they kept you at a pretty unanachronistic level of tech. Think about it - did any society invent the steam engine before it had astronomy? While Cavalry may not really need writing, would any civilization have somehow "beelined" to them?

[Fosse]

Commrade Tass has a good point.

But even if we agree that anacrhonisms are bad... eras are a terrible way to keep things "right." Especially seeing as this can be done with a carefully crafted technology tree. Certain beelines should probably be impossible, I'll grant you that, but the way to do that is to build a tech tree that naturally prevents certain techs from coming about at the "wrong" time.

There is some discussion in the List - Technology thread about enabling techs, which would be researched independantly of the player control (or not) and allow access to the appropriate advanced technologies.


Even sticking with a Civ 2 style tree though, a well made tree will be better than the artificial slicings of the Era system.

[GodKing]

While I agree that the way erras are is not good, and that a good tech tree will do all that eras currently do and more, I always hate to loose a feature. I will not vote yet, but strongly lean towards getting rid of them because I currently see no use for them. Show me a good use however....

[LDiCesare]

With eras, it makes it possible from the setup of the game on what techs will be immediately available (let's say I want fast action with Tanks, I'll start a game from "modern era" on).

You could have a setup "start with how many techs?" (pick a number between 2 and many) and let each civ pick their techs as they would have done had they researched them in-game.

to tie some gameplay features with an era

It's easier to tie this to a tech. CtP2 ties slavery to 2 techs and a wonder for instance. After the wonder is built, noone can use slaves anymore for instance. Techs are simply more versatile than eras. In fact you could have eras in a civ2 tech tree: Just make this era tech require all techs before it (civ2 limits this to 2 requirements but adding intermediary sub-era techs would allow to have more), and is a prereq for all the following techs. Thus eras are not a new feature but a limitation of the existing system.

they kept you at a pretty unanachronistic level of tech

That's wrong. They kept you at an unachrnonistic (eek, what a word!) level of tech from a European point of view. As I said, from an American point of view (Inca) it didn't necessarily make sense. Incas knowledge of mathematics was superior to European Middle Age equivalent. Yet Astronomy is a middle age tech that Incas who didn't have iron working (antiquity) couldn't purchase in civ3. Eras cause anachronisms.

[joncha]

I voted yes, but only because their wasn't a "hybrid" option... I think for these polls to be meaningful at all, there should be more options.

I could just have easily voted no, though. The current system is a little too constraining, but its better than a bad anachronistic one.

jon.

[Harrier UK]

I voted yes.

For mod makers the ability to have extra eras is a must have.

We need at least two more, or three if we want a futuristic era.

The first two ages could easily be split into two extra eras.

[Fosse]

The problem I have with eras is that every single argument for having eras can be implemented without them, and they cause their own problems.

Part of why Civ 3 research is the same most times is the era system... you can't try out a new beeline or go for a vastly different strategy. Want to avoid military altogether and focus on infrastructure? Too bad, finish your era first. Want to research monotheism? Hope you know Construction. How much sense does that make?

Every good thing eras could give you - different graphical looks, mod possibilities, ANYTHING - can be provided more elegantly wihtout eras.

[Jaguar]

We could make a pretty cool hybrid system. How does this sound?

1. The science advisor looks the same, but instead of 4 screens, you can scroll horizontally to reveal more of the tech tree.

2. Dotted lines are drawn where the new eras come. However, the techs from one age are regular prerequisites for the techs from the next. For example, Flight is required for Rocketry, but not Ecology.

3. Once you have as many techs from the next age as you are missing from your current age, you advance to the next era, city art changes, leaderheads get new outfits, etc. For example, a civ missing three ancient techs that knows three medieval techs will be in the medieval era. However, a civ missing two ancient techs that only knows one medieval tech will still be in the ancient era.

What do you guys think of this?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
What do you guys think of this?

It looks good, as it keeps the graphical interest of eras (which, in this regard, are superior to tying graphics to the discovery of one or two techs), without hampering the flexibility of the tech tree.

I think most people opposed to eras here do so because they immediately think of Civ3 eras. The way eras are exploited in Civ3 leaves much to be desired, but it doesn't mean the concept of eras altogether deserves a ditching.