More Ages

[New Yorker]

in civ 2 & CTP, there was like only four ages , come on there were more ages. i made a list of age that should be put in

1)Tribal Era
2)Bronze Age
3)Iron Age
4)Dark Age
5)Renaissance
6)Colonial Era/Age of Reason
7)Industrial Revolution
8)Napoleonic Era(after the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was focused on European affairs rather than colonial affairs)
9)Imperialist Era
10)Modern Age
i think the Modern Age should be broken out into four ages
10a)Independence Era(when the colonies of imperialist nations revolt and become independent)
10b)Globalization Era(i guess something similar to the Cold War)
10c)Computer Age
10d)Genetic Age(this age is on the eve of the completion of the Human Genome Project)

there should be more styles of cities through the ages cuz in civ2 there wasn't all that much & CTP improved on it but not enough

by the way i like to give thanks to all the people who gave me the middle finger to my idea in "let the good times roll on" or something like that

--------------------------------------
Everyone in New York knows at least two words in sign language
[This message has been edited by New Yorker (edited January 27, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by New Yorker (edited January 27, 2001).]

[The Patriot]

I really dont like this idea. All it would do is add more micro-management.

------------------
We are not Westernors. We are not Southernors. We are not Yankees. WE ARE AMERICANS.

[New Yorker]

Please tell me how does it add micro-management?

-----------------------------------
i am not an american, i am not a yankee, DAMN IT I AM A NEW YORKER

[colossus]

In Civ2, age has no effect on gameplay except on city graphics. I don't see the point of making extra ages.

[Ralf]

Too much and too little spoils everything. You have suggested too many ages.

Pre-ancient > Ancient > Dark age > Renaissance > Age of reason > Industrial rev > Modern age > Globalization age, is more then enough. Since Civ-3 is likely to adopt the Civ-2 4000 BC - 2040 AD time-frame, we dont need any hard-to-relate SciFi SMAC-style ages.

I also like to see changed city-graphics representing each era, and not just Industrial > Modern, like in Civ-2. I dont care if there are any dead-important historical/cultural reasons why city-grapics "must" change between each pre-industrial age. The city-grapics should change anyway, for gameplay reasons.

An alternative added (but optional) method would be era-changing interface-skins that was suggested in the
Is Civ-3 game-interface with SKINS a good idea? topic. Personally I prefer user-defined or civ-defined though.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[tniem]

If ages don't have any impact on gameplay than is there any reason to include them?

I expect cities to be more detailed on the map so that you can see your wonders. Also with new technologies new buildings could be built. But should the entire city change with a new age? IMO not over night.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-28-2001 02:54 PM If ages don't have any impact on gameplay than is there any reason to include them?

If you driving a car on a highway with a totally flat tree-less landscape around you, that journey quickly become tedious. All kinds of variations is they key!
A winding hilly road perhaps (= good AI-civ resistance). But also things like bushes, trees and lakes that sweeps by. That gives you a sense of speed.
Several Ages that follows upon each other (with changing city-graphics) have that purpose. So you see - eras and ages really IS important.

quote: I expect cities to be more detailed on the map so that you can see your wonders. Also with new technologies new buildings could be built. But should the entire city change with a new age? IMO not over night.

Cities in Civ-3 is most likely to be situated within one single central-square, surrounded by city-areas. Just like in Civ-2 and SMAC. If you want to look at Wonders and city-improvements for that city - why not click on a city-view panorama pop-up window instead?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 28, 2001).]

[MrFun]

The Modern era did not begin with the Enlightenment and colonial revolutions.

Although it risks being too arbitrary and simplistic, many historians use the year 1492 as when the Modern era began. I think a better set period for the beginning of the Modern era would be the Rennaisance.

[tniem]

Ralf,

I still do not understand why ages are important.

What you are saying is that the change of an age will change the cities tiles. If cities are only a single image than I would agree with you.

I however believe that a city will be represented by buildings in a single tile. A small city at the beginning of the game may be a few tents. Then after Masonry some brick towers grow to be prominent in the city. In the 1800s maybe some skyscrappers are built.

What I think is that the city tile is going to be more vibrant in Civ III. I obviously have no proof of this, its just one of those things I believe.

I just don't think that the past at each age the city image changes is going to be in Civ III, gaming has moved past that kind of thing.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-28-2001 04:58 PM I still do not understand why ages are important.

The important thing is that the player is given some graphical sense that time/eras/epochs is passing by in the game. If they do this by suddenly switching city-square images at certain points of the tech-tree/timeline - or, if they instead choose your model:
More gradually evolve parts of the city-tile, so that the city-graphics changes more naturally - I dont now. Maybe the latter alternative is the better one. My bottom line is that I think its important with some graphical evolutionary changes (one way or the other) that tells the player; not only how hes cities grow bigger, but also how they changes through the ages and epochs.

quote: What I think is that the city tile is going to be more vibrant in Civ III. I obviously have no proof of this, its just one of those things I believe.

Well, maybe your right!

[bagdar]

Just don't give the ages real names.

City graphics may change, but forcing your progress in Civ into the mold of real historical epoches is silly.

[Ralf]

BAGDAR & TNIEM and NIKOLAI:

Have you guys ever played Civ-2 (the computer-game)?

If you have, you perhaps noticed that all the city-graphics changed instantly once you discovered the Industrialization-tech. It then changed a second time later, but I dont remember what tech triggered that.
Anyway, my point is that it didnt matter when your discovered Industrialization. Depending on your skill as a civ-player you could race through the whole tech-tree pretty fast (or rather slow). Some people perhaps acieved industrialization as early as 16th or 17th century, while others achieved it in the 19th, or even the late 20th century.

So why this talk about "forcing the progress in Civ into the mold of real historical epoches"? It is the player who decides when Industrialization (and with that; the city-graphical change) should take place.
The concept of Ages/Eras should work the same - but instead of only one single tech being the trigger (as in civ-2), perhaps as many as 3-4 supplementing techs should trigger each Age/Era-specific city-graphics change.

And why this talk about "always need a Dark Age to get advances like chivalry"?
You dont "need" anything of the kind. You get your chivalry-advance anyway, regardless if you have also discovered the other 3-4 supplementing techs constituting the Dark Age, or not. So, what is the problem?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 29, 2001).]

[Jer8m8]

I don't like this idea, but what if you can only research techs from the age you are in & previous ages only (until you research "Stone Age", an advance that brings you into that era)

[Steve Clark]

But, Ralf my friend, it is still all cosmetic, just like the Wonder movies. It has NO effect on gameplay except swapping out graphics. Since I play with the HiRes modpack, when I hit the Modern(?) age, I get the New City skyline for each city. Big whoop (even though it does look sharp). I don't need a change in the cosmetics to tell me I discovered the trigger advance. What's a better solution? More ages? I have no idea.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-29-2001 03:32 PM Have you guys ever played Civ-2 (the computer-game)?

Way to much for my own good and the original civ before that.

quote: Anyway, my point is that it didnt matter when your discovered Industrialization. Depending on your skill as a civ-player you could race through the whole tech-tree pretty fast (or rather slow). Some people perhaps acieved industrialization as early as 16th or 17th century, while others achieved it in the 19th, or even the late 20th century.

Yes, I agree. I was one of those discovering things way before society actually got to them. What I don't understand is ages. Historians look back and name different time periods the different ages.

My civs normally did not evolve the same as our present earth so how can you say that I went through the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, etc. If I never fought a war while I had the technology than did I officially join that particular age?

Or another example, the Industrial Revolution, I have the technology to build factories, but I choose not to. I don't want the pollution. How can you possibly say that I am a part of the industrial revolution by discovering industrialization.

My main problem with the age system is that it is not by discovering an advance that you join a new age, but instead because your society embraces these techs and uses them. In this way you have actually entered an age where you can use the particular tech. My other major problem is this implementation may be much different than how it was used in real history. In which case my age should not be named the same as the real age was.

quote: And why this talk about "always need a Dark Age to get advances like chivalry"? You dont "need" anything of the kind. You get your chivalry-advance anyway, regardless if you have also discovered the other 3-4 supplementing techs constituting the Dark Age, or not. So, what is the problem?

The problem is that if Civ III has these ages than when I get to about the time of chivalry I will enter the Middle Ages or Dark Ages because of the game. But in my civ the people are flourishing. The exact opposite of what happened in real history, so why should I have the same age name?

Ages in the end will actually decrease realism and not add any game play. Again, I maintain I like the evolution of city tiles as long as they are gradual and overlap with new techs.
[This message has been edited by tniem (edited January 29, 2001).]