Louis XIV - Medieval or Industrial?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Before I start work on their leadersets I was wondering....

Do you consider the period of Louis the XIV (France's Sun King) to be the Middle Ages or Industrial Times?

How about Phillip II of Spain?

[Jon Shafer]

Middle Ages. I think that there should be a 'Renaissance Age' though in between... going straight from the 'dark' ages to the Industrial ages is a bit rough. You have ships at the end of the Middle Ages, Ironclads at the beginning of the next age, and Battleships by the end of it.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Trip
Middle Ages. I think that there should be a 'Renaissance Age' though in between... going straight from the 'dark' ages to the Industrial ages is a bit rough. You have ships at the end of the Middle Ages, Ironclads at the beginning of the next age, and Battleships by the end of it.

Don't look at me, this is the Firaxian timeline!

[Willem]

I was kind of hoping that we'd have the ability of adding a couple of mini-eras in the game. My thoughts were to add "The Dark Ages" before "The Middle Ages", and the "Colonial Era" at the end.

PS Louis XIV was definitely Medieval! He died 1715, at least a hundred years before the Industrial Revolution. Before you go asking questions like that, it wouldn't hurt to do a search for the info first.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Willem
PS Louis XIV was definitely Medieval! He died 1715, at least a hundred years before the Industrial Revolution. Before you go asking questions like that, it wouldn't hurt to do a search for the info first.

First of all, since you you told me to do research before posting anything, I'll suggest that you read the thread and poll before posting anything.

Medieval isn't an option. Firaxis broke the game into Middle Ages and Industrial Times and Louis XIV falls in the Renaissance/Restoration era in between those two periods.

That being said, I agree that he should be in the Middle Ages as he's not quite "technological" enough for the Industrial Times, I'd consider that period to be Napoleon.

However if YOU had bothered to do any research you would have found that Louis XIV reigned from 1643-1715, the Industrial Revolution was approximately 1700-1900 with the first steam engine invented during his reign. He's a LOT closer to the Industrial Age than the Middle Ages.

[Willem]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

However if YOU had bothered to do any research you would have found that Louis XIV reigned from 1643-1715, the Industrial Revolution was approximately 1700-1900 with the first steam engine invented during his reign. He's a LOT closer to the Industrial Age than the Middle Ages.

OK, I stand corrected. My obviously erroneous impressions was that the Industrial Revolution occurred within a narrow time frame around 1860, when the Steam Engine was well established. I see though that the roots of that era began much earlier. My history is a bit rusty, sorry.

Still, I don't think Loius XIV quite qualifies as an Industrial Era ruler.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Willem
Still, I don't think Loius XIV quite qualifies as an Industrial Era ruler.

I fully agree, especially when you consider he concentrated on bringing back and strengthing the concepts of Monarchy and Divine Right.

Boy, did he ever screw up. I wonder if he reincarnated as Osama Bin Laden..........

[Willem]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

I wonder if he reincarnated as Osama Bin Laden..........

Bin Laden strikes me more like a Cardinal Richileu type myself. And yes, I know I probably spelled his name wrong.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Willem


Bin Laden strikes me more like a Cardinal Richileu type myself. And yes, I know I probably spelled his name wrong.

I didn't know the cardinal had a thing for goats!

[Ozymandias]

Ages Mis-Cast

"Ancient" "Medieval" etc. are worthwhile distinctions -- barely -- if your game is closely paralleling the historical development of the west.

Given a limit of 4 ages, my sentiment is that each should have a unifying technological theme which is reflected in the nature of warfare --

"Ancient" is simply pre-gunpowder and would (historically) correspond to the world up to about the 14th century. Alexander's hoplites would be little different from the Swiss pikemen who made a habit of unhorsing armored knights.

The "Gunpowder" Age -- which saw the abilities of central governments to overturn feudal privileges and found nation-states -- would correspond to ca. 14th century to ca. 1815. Note that this would quite correctly also correspond to both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in Europe.

"Industrial" Age would span ca. 1815-1945. Factories and ever-better metallurgy (btw I really think the Bessemer Converter -- allowing producition of modern steel -- should be a tech advance) combined with refined petrochemicals rule.

"Information" age -- 1946 until game's end.

-- So, to answer, the Sun King quite would properly belong in the Gunpowder Age, undoing feudal privilege, building a central treasury -- and Versailles (copied in some way by so many European rulers) might make a nice minor Wonder.

Just my 2 centimes --

Oz

[Willem]

Re: Ages Mis-Cast

Originally posted by Ozymandias
Given a limit of 4 ages, my sentiment is that each should have a unifying technological theme which is reflected in the nature of warfare --

I think basing the eras on the nature of warfare rather limiting myself.

What I would like to see is the ability of adding mini-eras. For instance, I'd like to add a short Dark Ages era before the Middle Ages, which would encompass mainly the Feudalism/Chivalry aspect of the game. Even include some techs that have a negative effect on my empire, like the Spanish Inquisition.

And after that period, have a Colonial era, which would make the sailing ships more important, and expand the role of the early gunpowder units.

[Ozymandias]

Re: Re: Ages Mis-Cast

Originally posted by Willem

I think basing the eras on the nature of warfare rather limiting myself.

What I would like to see is the ability of adding mini-eras. For instance, I'd like to add a short Dark Ages era before the Middle Ages, which would encompass mainly the Feudalism/Chivalry aspect of the game. Even include some techs that have a negative effect on my empire, like the Spanish Inquisition.

And after that period, have a Colonial era, which would make the sailing ships more important, and expand the role of the early gunpowder units.

Eras seem geared towards having to complete a base set of technologies before advancing to the next era. Given the 4-era limit, basing them around warfare is really basing them around the civs' abilities to mobilize resources of different degrees of sophistication and cohesion.

If you are speaking of a strictly historical scenario, trying to model, say, 600 AD to 1700 AD, then the real challenge becomes how best to model the historical peculiarities of western European civilization in those times.

For example, the "Dark Ages" -- the nadir of western civilization between the fall of Rome and the "Middle Ages" -- was almost certainly caused by a climatic event, possibly a spectacularly large volcanic eruption, which lowered global temperatures and caused the failure or faltering of nearly every civilization, globally, at the time. This (along with, for instance, global warming) could be recreated by having events (and we know we won't get event triggers!) changing tiles' productivity at different times.

To truly model "feudal" Europe requires an economic model which Civ doesn't allow -- HOWEVER I've been toying with some approaches. For example, having the production of each knight cost 1 population point. This represents people not meanihgfully tied up in commerce etc., but tilling the land so that the guys in the castle can breed strong horses and wear expensive armor to go bashing one another.

Also, the tech tree can be brought into play, placing Literacy farther along, like in the Renaissance where it would arguably belong.

There have been some threads (sorry, can't think of them off hand) suggesting "Wonders" (and I gag to think of the term in this context) such as "Ethnic Cleansing."

The Inquisition could/should simply be a minor Wonder --as was historically the case, a major effort to bring religious cohesion to Catholic Europe. Prerequisites could be a certain number of cathedrals; corruption could go down or up depending upon yor historical bias (e.g., Martin Luther's letter to the German Princes came down to, Hey guys, you wanna send all this dough to Rome or keep it in Germany?) You might also considering tying together the "wonder" with crusading spirit and/or conquistadors etc.

Anyway, my point is not to dissuade your interesting thoughts, but merely to suggest other ways to create your desired effects without keeping your fingers crossed for Civ4!

Best Regards,

Oz

[Willem]

Re: Re: Re: Ages Mis-Cast

Originally posted by Ozymandias

For example, the "Dark Ages" -- the nadir of western civilization between the fall of Rome and the "Middle Ages" -- was almost certainly caused by a climatic event, possibly a spectacularly large volcanic eruption, which lowered global temperatures and caused the failure or faltering of nearly every civilization, globally, at the time. This (along with, for instance, global warming) could be recreated by having events (and we know we won't get event triggers!) changing tiles' productivity at different times.

Sorry, but can you point to some references to support your hypothesis? Last time I read any historical analysis of that period, the Roman Empire fell through sheer political/military incompetance, which resullted in the sacking of Rome by the Germanic tribes from the north.

[Ozymandias]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ages Mis-Cast

Originally posted by Willem


Sorry, but can you point to some references to support your hypothesis? Last time I read any historical analysis of that period, the Roman Empire fell through sheer political/military incompetance, which resullted in the sacking of Rome by the Germanic tribes from the north.

Of course -- I've lent my copy out, but it's David Keys "Catastrophe: An Investigation into the Origins of Modern Civilization". Look it up on amazon.com and view the excerpts. The first of 2 relevant pages is Page 4 -- the 3rd paragraph on that page begins:

"The climatic disaster half destroyed the Roman Empire, unleashing hordes of central Asian barbarians against the empire's northern borders, triggering geopolitical processes that created Arab pressure on its southern flank, and causing a series of killer epidemics that drastically reduced its population."

The jacket (and of course the book itself) dramatically broadens the scope: "... For months on end, starting in AD 535, a strange, dusky haze robbed much of the eartrh of normal sunlight. Crops failed in Asia and the Middle East as global weather patterns drastically altered. Bubonic plague, exploding out of Africa, wiped out entire populations in Europe ... [also there were] unprecedented drought in Central America, a strange yellow dust drifting like snow over eastern Asia, prolonged famine ... Keys makes hitherto unrecognized connections between the 'wasteland' that overspread the British countryside and the fall of the great pyramid-building Teotihuacan civilization in Mexico ..." etc.

Of course, one can readily -- and correctly -- take the view that he is simply explaining, in a larger context, reasons for an Empire's incompetence

-- And, no, it's not bizarre conjecture along the lines of "Hey, I found Atlantis!"-- rather, a serious scholar correlatiung previously uncorrelated facts into a global picture of ruin and tumult. I think it's a must-read for any serious student of the period, let alone those of us merely pondering questions about why Rome fell etc.

Happy Reading!

-Oz