The Dark Ages

[Gord McLeod]

This is just a thought that struck me as I browsed the forums for the first time in a while. There are many great ideas being pushed around, some of them from the utlimate Civ III list. How would people feel about the possibility of a Dark Age, or dark ages?

I'm a little unsure about how this proposal would be implemented myself... I'm basically just thinking out loud as it were. It might make the game interesting in terms of potential threats and for prolonging shorter games that might otherwise end too soon for a player's taste if there was the potential for catastrophic loss of technology and scientific research.

Does anyone know offhand how the Dark Age began in reality? How would something like that be implemented in a Civilization game? The way I imagine it, all civilizations would lose technology as a result, not just a few, so this should be a pretty rare or hard to "achieve" situation. Maybe the techs are taken from one major grouping (economics, science, military, etc) or back to a certain epoch (if you're in the modern age, the world is thrust back into the renaissance period.)

There should be safeguards of course. Maybe your civ loses less technology for every library you have, and less still for universities and other institutions of science and knowledge. Maybe possessing The Great Library renders you immune entirely. Maybe a high literacy rate in your civilization contributes, though as that's dependent on science improvements, this shouldn't be combined with the universities and libraries bonuses, of course.

Just a few thoughts...

[raingoon]

Interesting post...

Just off the top of MY head, but... it seems first we have to define what "Dark Ages" means in terms of the game. Well, in history, the Dark Ages refers chiefly to the western hemisphere between about 400 AD and approximately 1400 AD. It followed, mainly, the disintegration of the Roman Empire, which had at its zenith covered most of the known world. Lack of a strong cental government had led to the breakup of provinces, which each in turn became more susceptible to being over-run by superior numbers of less technologically advanced civilizations.

Another important point is the population growth at this time, which was considerable in places like London, etc., leading to the advent of plagues. You can't underestimate the power of germs in creating the Dark Ages. As yet, I don't know of any models for Germs in Civilization that have been put forth, though a good one ought to be in the game.

Germs aside (and you really can't leave them aside and still have a Dark Age, BUT...) I suppose it's easy enough to see how a Dark Age could occur in the game, but rather than it being a "trigger," such as Civ 2's trigger after the discovery of philosophy, a Dark Ages would necessarily follow the downfall of a MAJOR civ that had grown too large, and whatever the world technology the world had previously benefited from its existence would, for the most part, be gone.

To some extent such conditions already could exist in Civ 2, but we never really stopped to realize we were actually in a "Dark Age" until we lost the game. Perhaps what you're suggesting could be similar to the "Civil War" possibility that was more current in Civ I -- there, when you took over a larger civ's capitol, civil war was declared in that civ and it split in two. Maybe in this case, when a civ has 1) the most advancements and 2) the largest mass and 3) the highest population and 4) the most trade with the greatest number of other civs, and THEN it begins to drop all areas, this naturally would lead to a decrease in productivity of all the other civs it was trading with, and the game would be in a period that could justifiably be declared a "Dark Age." This would last until one or more civs reached the level of knowledge and trade the previous leader had been at before the fall toward the Dark Age began.

Again, just an idea. And I'd still like to see germs worked in there somehow. For a good book on this general subject, check out "Guns, Germs and Steel."

[Psion]

Great thoughts, raingoon. If diplomacy is truly improved (I'm sure it will be, but my expectations may just be too high), civilizations will have to rely on others for trade & resources. When a great one that was supplying a lot of trade and resources falls, it will invariably effect all other civilizations. But the question is, how will a great civilization fall? In Civ2, when a civilization rose to power, it was nearly impossible for it to 'fall'. If The Rise and Fall of Civilizations is implemented, then I think Dark Ages will occur, making the game more historical, challenging, and most of all, more fun.

[Gord McLeod]

It occurs to me that Dark Ages would also lessen the threat of ICS. Such a strategy would greatly increase your vulnerability to succumbing to a Dark Age, and perhaps the consequences of a Dark Age could include increased vulnerability to other problems, like civil war.

[tniem]

I saw something recently about the Dark Ages on TLC or The History Channel that said the time period really wasn't dark. The professor said really it was just a period between world powers (Rome and then Spain/England/France new world) when smaller civs competed for power. The time actually brought abought a lot of technological advances, especially in math (for catapults, cannons, etc.), in chemistry (gun powder), and in biology (first ideas of germs).

The professor said that he considers the period the Middle Ages because it was time between the Classical Period and the Enlightenment that brought about great military advances (sieges, castles, first guns, etc.)

What if time periods such as the dark ages did not take away technology but instead simply refocused it. Obviously if there are a lot of smaller civs, they will want military to compete. However if there are two large civs (i.e. USSR and US) the rest of the civs will want diplomatic and trade techs to work with the large civilizations.

This would solve one of the problems in the Civ-series of gaining techs simply by researching enough. Technology is discovered sometimes by accident while at others times takes years to research and then doesn't even pan out. In this way this idea would impose cultural technology research.

[Charles the Third]

tniem has a point. Historians widely differ on how "dark" the Dark Ages really were. Central authority collapsed and has yet to reappear in Europe, that much is true. Learning certainly slowed down and some minor technologies, such as Greek Fire, were lost for good. Still, learning did continue. It would be more analogous to those points in CivII where all civilizations are putting their resources into taxes and army-building and none into research.

I'm not certain whether an idea such as the Dark Ages should be added to CivIII. The less you tinker with a winning formula, the better. Still, gotta admit it's a nice idea. If it is implemented, I would like to see it along the lines of raingoon's excellent idea. It would certainly make a civilization's collapse into civil war more interesting

[MidKnight Lament]

If the game's set up so that big civs can crumble, the Dark Ages will make themselves. No need for us to simulate it via other means.

- MKL

[The Joker]

The Dark Ages from 500-1400 was actually no the only Dark Ages. The Greek civilization actually faced something that could easily be compared to the Dark Ages some time around 1000BC (known as the dark centuries). In this period the Minoan culture collapsed, and left only scarce settlements. This age of darkness lasted untill the colonization period of Greece centuries later.

Dark Ages, it seems, is not just one episode in the history of mankind, but something that returns after centuries of prosperity.

[Gord McLeod]

quote: Originally posted by MidKnight Lament on 04-10-2000 01:30 AM If the game's set up so that big civs can crumble, the Dark Ages will make themselves. No need for us to simulate it via other means.

I was thinking more of the loss of technology than simply having Civs crumble. Historically, there were some technologies that were lost such as plumbing, steam engines and other things that the ancient Greeks/Romans used and were not subsequently reinvented for hundreds of years. If there's a way to represent this type of phenomena, I think it could add some spice to the game, but it really depends on how you handle the crumbling of a large empire.

[MidKnight Lament]

I see your point. My mistake.

As I understand it at the moment, civs that are crumbling will split into a number of different factions that will splinter off with discontent cities. Do you have any ideas on how techs could be taken away from civs in this situation? Personally, I'm still not sure that it's the best idea.

- MKL

[Gord McLeod]

Well, I'm scouting out ideas, and I do have a few thoughts, though I'm not sure how workable/appealing they are.

Techs that have not seen any application might well be lost. For instance, you've just aquired Masonry but have not yet built anything that it allows - no units, no city improvements, no Wonders. You haven't even begun construction of anything the technology allows. Something occurs, maybe your citizens are horribly discontent or someone captures your capital city, and your civilization is thrown into the midst of a civil war, dividing into two pieces. Since that tech is "unused", it is forgotten in the chaos. Techs that have been used a little bit might potentially be lost, but there's less of a chance, since it is of practial use in the civilization already, and thus more likely to be commonly known. Technology that's widespread would be all but impossible to lose.
[This message has been edited by Gord McLeod (edited April 10, 2000).]

[Diodorus Sicilus]

In CivII game terms, the traditional "Dark Ages" (400AD+) took place when the Roman player changed governments from Monarchy to Tyranny, then to Anarchy, had most of his cities go into Riot because of distance from the capital or lack of garrisons, and didn't do anything to stop the Ritos. The cities were then occupied by Barbarians, and eventually a couple of Barbarian units took the capital, Rome.
Unlike the CivII example, the Barbarian cities then formed new civilizations and went on to play as Germany, France, and England, while the Greek player that the Roman player had eliminated stayed eliminated as a major player for the rest of the game...
I don't know of any technology that was completely lost or forgotten because of any dark ages. What was lost was the ability or necessity to apply the technology. For instance, Roman roads and acqueducts required not only concrete and masonry, but the political organization to build and maintain them: lacking the (political & economic) "software", so to speak, the technological hardware was useless. Trade declined partly because there was no standard coinage after central government collapsed (multiple Riots?), so everyone became by necessity self-reliant, markets dried up, and the prosperity and wealth generated by Trade disappeared as well - along with the interaction of ideas brought by trade which influenced and encouraged innovation and technological improvements.
Note also that military technology got continuously better throughout the "Dark Ages": during 400-1000 AD the stirrup, armored knight, stone keep/castle, and warship with combat towers were all introduced in Europe, yet the size and effectiveness of armies declined because the economic and political structure to support and maintain a trained and disciplined standing army (like the Legions) had disappeared.
No Civ game has adequately modeled political structures or the structure and maintenance of armies, so we get Knights (a social class) along with Legions (a professional standing military) along with Archers (everything from ancient Persian peasants to English longbow sergeants) with no difference in the way they are raised, maintained, and combined into armies.

[MidKnight Lament]

Good call. That could work well actually. We could ensure it only comes into play at relevant moments that way. And it wouldn't cripple a civ too much. Sounds reasonable.

- MKL

[The Joker]

I must disagree with Diodorus' comment. On the old SE thread (at the Firaxis Forum) we discussed the Roman Empire some, as it was a very interesting examble of a civ with numerous SE settings over time. My personal conviction is, that the Romans changed economics from City State (where the center of trade, production and people's lifes is the cities) to manorialism (rural based) because of the great unstability at the time (Manorialism should have higher police and military ratings than City State). SO the Romans thought that Manorialism would be more suitable in handling the new situation with loads of internal and external enemies. This, however, resulted in riots in most cities (like Diodorus mentioned), as manorialism would be less good at handling very large empires as the Roman, and better in smaller empires, and combined with the countless attacks from minor, uncivilized civs the empire broke down.

I am unsure how to handle the loss of advances (although it was not really many advances that were lost. More like a stop to new advances), but S. Kroeze once described a pretty undeveloped idea of having a part of your research to be spent on education. If this amount is inadequate you will loose advances. If the Romans due to the larger need of military and (perhabs) luxuries to stop the riots and invasions decreased the amount of money used on education they could loose advances.

If some sort of dark ages is to be included in Civ3 it must be done "organically". It must not be so that suddently because of a few things happend you are told that "you have now entered a dark age", and suddently lots of advances disappear and your empire start collapsing without any particular reason. There should be small and large dark ages, and the difference should be gliding.

[tniem]

I still believe that the 'Dark Ages' was a time of great increases in military technology and technique. Yes the arts, other classical knowledge, and government declined or just stopped being advanced. Therefor if this is implemented I think it should only be that situations force a part of the world to research only one are for a time. These forces could include religion, brakedown of a civ, many smaller civs competing, disaster, or a new philosophy/thought.

Although, tech lost is implemented I do believe with Joker it should be by the education model and you have not educated enough of the population.