Would you like a fifth era?

[Playa del Carmen]

I would either want them to an ancient/Reniassance age or not change anything at all.
I REALLY dislike future ages. If I'd wanted to play a future age, I would've played SMAC.

[DarkCloud]

Renaissance/Colonial would seem to be the most interesting of the eras, as ancient units would be fairly weak and would take a long time to move between the civilizations.

as for the future era- CTP's future units were, for the most part, fairly bad. SMAC's units were better, but I'll back Playa del Carmen's response on that end.

[Inverse Icarus]

colonial.

[Jethro83]

I was recently watching a documentary on the Stone age. It pretty much shot most stereotypes of our ancestors that far back right out the window. Our stone age ancestors were actually our intellectual and social equals, and not the primitive lifeforms we attribute to that era.

After watching this documentary, I've found the Stone Age to be quite an interesting era, and IMHO it would be a good addition to Civ III.

[Mr. President]

See, the thing about a fifth era is that there's the risk of it overlapping with Alpha Centauri. If that were the case, it would be stupid.

There's not a lot of science in the Stone Age, is there? Fire? Clothing? Pointy sticks? Intellectually, Stone Age man was little different from Bronze Age man, but there was a very large technological gap.

[zulu9812]

My major gripe with Civ3 is that it only goes up to modern day. So, yes, I'd want a future era. Call To Power II had it, but I guess Infogrames don't like using Activision's good ideas.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Mr. President
See, the thing about a fifth era is that there's the risk of it overlapping with Alpha Centauri. If that were the case, it would be stupid.

You're maybe right. But I was thinking that there be a future era and its techs and units, completely unrelated to Alpha Centauri. I want to storm through an enemy city with a bunch of missile and laser-toting mechs dammit!

There's not a lot of science in the Stone Age, is there? Fire? Clothing? Pointy sticks? Intellectually, Stone Age man was little different from Bronze Age man, but there was a very large technological gap.

The stone age doesn't have to be an era that allows significant technological research. I was thinking of it as an era for early expansion, so that when the ancient era begins, you and your enemies have a strong base with which to play the rest of the game. But then again, a bunch of stone age cities with names we use today sounds a little odd. But so what!

[August Borms]

Certainly NOT a future era.

[Lucilla]

I wouldn't mind a future era, but rather than playing it on Alpha Centauri, I'd prefer it to take place on Earth. Building submarine cities or satelite stations is more realistic.

Concerning a new era in the middle of the game:
IMO, putting in some more tech advances in the existing eras might be sufficient. Having more optional advances would also give the game more variety in research paths. I hate it, when I have to discover, that the AI follows the same research path, but is just that little bit faster than I am. That doesn't leave enough opportunities for trading techs.

[zulu9812]

Originally posted by Lucilla
Having more optional advances would also give the game more variety in research paths.

YES! That would give rise to more varied civs, rather than the linear progression we have right now.

[godinex]

What if We need is a Day, Month, Year calendar for the new mods and the editor. Let us select what unit of time we want for the game!
Imagine WWII Mod with a calendar of Days! Will be really cool!

[*Clart*]

i think there definatly should be a future era.but it shouldnt be the first priority. this dark age you guys speek of sounds cool.

[Cookie Monster]

I voted for having a prehistoric era since Civ has traditionally been a game based on history up to modern times. It wouldn't make sense to have a futuristic era given this fact.

I enjoyed CTP series because it had the future built into it. Activision didn't intend their product to be based solely on transpired history.

So as a true diehard Civ'er I say keep it pure and if they're gonna add another era let it be something based on actual history!

[Adagio]

Just had an idea about making the "age" system different (attached picture). Here I have tried to make one ancient age (The one everybody has), two medival ages, three industrial ages and four modern times. E.g. if you "invent" medieval times 1, you can't "invent" modern age three and four!

Each different age number has something special, e.g. some wonders other ages might not have, or better planes, stronger tanks, etc.

To get to a certain age number, you need to have invented certain techs before other techs, e.g. if you invent money making techs as first priority, then your next age will contain more money making techs!

Hope you get my idea. It was just a thought on how to make the inventing area a little more different, since it's now just there, not much difference between the civs...

[Lucilla]

Originally posted by ADG
Just had an idea about making the "age" system different (attached picture). Here I have tried to make one ancient age (The one everybody has), two medival ages, three industrial ages and four modern times. E.g. if you "invent" medieval times 1, you can't "invent" modern age three and four!

That idea sounds interesting. But would that mean that one civ follows one path and the other a different one (a little bit like parallel universes for the trekkies amongst us), or should the development then be the same for each civ, once a crucial tech has been researched?