Adding A "Soft" 5th Age?

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by mkqest
I rather prefer to have it based on weapons technology than anything else. In the ancient age its still spear and sword until metallurgy and gunpowder changes the equation.

Yes, but there still were advances in the ancient days: bronze, iron, as well as advances in tactics and training. Just because they didn't involve the exciting world of firearms, it doesn't make them any less significant.

[joncnunn]

The Mesopatian conquest breaks down the Ancent Era.

And there actually are some advances of interest during the Ancient Era.

Best starting offensive unit : Archer. 2-1-1
Best starting defensive unit : Hoplite. [Greek only] 1-3-1

Irq Warrior 3-1-2 requires Horseback riding and Horses.
Gallic Warrior 3-2-2 requires Iron working and Iron.
Statue of Zeus can also be built early enough to spawn off 3-2-2 units before the ancient era ends.

[mkqest]

Originally posted by Xorbon


Yes, but there still were advances in the ancient days: bronze, iron, as well as advances in tactics and training. Just because they didn't involve the exciting world of firearms, it doesn't make them any less significant.

Agreed. Not disputing that.

I guess my point is that the game is ultimately a game of conquest making military units the focal point.

[mkqest]

Originally posted by Mace
In Civ3, the "Middle Ages" does kind of encompass a lot of history (500AD to 1800 AD).

Especially in weapons development in firearms, unit structure such as the introduction of the "Division" size military unit to the modern armies.

[Elias]

Dont you love mods? If you guys wanna get the rise and rule mod for conquests that should solve most of your tech problems. although there are no different ages there is ALOT mor stuff to reaserch. Also there is a tech ratio thing somwhere in the editor that changes the cost depending on the map size you could try that although im not sure what it does or how it works.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Xorbon
Really? I think the ancient era could be broken-up a little more. I'm thinking bronze age --> iron age --> middle ages.

Yes, the ancient era could be broken down more. But I think about it this way...if you had a sword, in 1000 BC, you could fight in a war in 1200 AD just the same (that's 2200 years later)...and be pretty effective. But in 1700 AD, just 500 years later, you might get cut down by a volley of musket shot. And of course if you had a musket from 1700 AD, you wouldn't be able to fight much against a machine gun of 1900 AD--and that's only 200 years later.

Besides, from a historical standpoint, most historians agree that the quote, "Ancient World" ended with the Romans, and the "Dark Ages" or Middle Ages followed. But yeah, I see what you're saying there...about the Iron age, Bronze Age, etc.

Of course it's all a moot point with Civ3, since there are 4 hard-coded ages...

But for Civ4 we can hope. At least maybe the number of eras won't be hard-coded. That's mainly what I want, a fairly open architecture for modding. Civ3 is really a big improvement over Civ1 and 2 in that department.

[joncnunn]

It's also worth noting that there was considerable overlap between the Iron Age & Bronze Age as some countries had Swords centuries before their neighbors.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Mace
But for Civ4 we can hope. At least maybe the number of eras won't be hard-coded. That's mainly what I want, a fairly open architecture for modding. Civ3 is really a big improvement over Civ1 and 2 in that department.

I'd like to see the eras made more flexible with respect to techs. I never have liked the way Civ 3 did the tech trees. They are too linear. I liked the tech tree for Civ 2 much more, though it could use much improvement.

[Hellcat]

Originally posted by Mace
Yes, the ancient era could be broken down more. But I think about it this way...if you had a sword, in 1000 BC, you could fight in a war in 1200 AD just the same (that's 2200 years later)...and be pretty effective.

That's not exactly true; there were many developments in sword making with how they were made, their strength, materials, etc.

[Mace]

Originally posted by Hellcat


That's not exactly true; there were many developments in sword making with how they were made, their strength, materials, etc.

Well, if something is fact, then it can't be false.

I said, or meant to say, that the sword was a major battlefield weapon for thousands of years. That's fact. Of course advances were made in swordmaking--that's also fact--but that isn't the point I was making.