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

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.

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.

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.

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.

quote: Originally posted by bagdar on 01-29-2001 05:06 AM 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.

I agree, that is part of my problem with ages. Does man always need a Dark Age to get advances like chivalry? Couldn't man discovered this stuff without a time between the Romans and the Enlightemnent?

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-29-2001 12:03 PM Does man always need a Dark Age to get advances like chivalry? Couldn't man discovered this stuff without a time between the Romans and the Enlightemnent?

I think you're right! I don't think we would need any Romans. Maybe we could name the age ourself;

Your majesty, we have discovered {set in an advance here}, and this discovery have made us able to go into a new age. Years of success will follow. Your majesty, what should we call this new age?

It could be the first to discover thes advance that will name the age, or every civilization names it what it want. I would prefer the first.

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.

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?

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 01-29-2001 04:55 PM 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.

OK, I see your point.

quote: 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.

The Dark Age (There were various dark ages in various areas but they occurred at vastly different times.)

Napoleanic Era

Imperialist Era could combine with Colonial Era perhaps

Independence Era is useless in a game where there are no colonies

quote: Originally posted by New Yorker on 01-27-2001 10:19 PM 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
tents/grass huts/mudbrick huts

2)Bronze Age
stone buildings

3)Iron Age
in what way would this be likely to be different from bronze age?

4)Dark Age
this only applies to Europe where something strange happened: technology seemed to take a few steps back. This is unlikely to be simulated in civ III. Are you suggesting that maybe you lose advances like literacy or even writing when you reach this age? 'cos this is why the Dark Ages are thus named. I think Age of Chivalry would be a fine name. key from Chivalry. Gothic style stone buildings

5)Renaissance
Elizabethan-style wooden buildings

6)Colonial Era/Age of Reason
?

7)Industrial Revolution
keyed from Industrilisation
brick buildings with chimney stacks

8)Napoleonic Era(after the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was focused on European affairs rather than colonial affairs)
Again this is a bit of a Europe-centric viewpoint. The Mogols have entered the Napoloenic Era!
which discovery should this be keyed from?
9)Imperialist Era
I guess the that Rome and China reached this point a bit earlier than everyone else.

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)
Buildings of glass and concrete for all of these I guess.

I think it's fine to write down 10+3 ages but I'm finding it hard to picture enough different city styles. And that's without factoring in different cutural styles (do you think they should remain?)

quote: Originally posted by TacticalGrace on 02-01-2001 08:36 AM 4)Dark Age this only applies to Europe where something strange happened: technology seemed to take a few steps back. This is unlikely to be simulated in civ III. Are you suggesting that maybe you lose advances like literacy or even writing when you reach this age? 'cos this is why the Dark Ages are thus named. I think Age of Chivalry would be a fine name. key from Chivalry. Gothic style stone buildings

The dark age (in western-european terms) concerns the period after the disapperance of the Romans and the start of what is called (at least as far as I know in in Dutch and Deutsch/german historiographical terms) "the great wandering of nations", stretching roughly speaking from 350 AD to 700 AD, the start of the Carolingian ages. It's a period in which a more-or-less stable urban society being centrally governed, fell back to a (non-christian !!) tribal-rural society in which there was hardly any coherence of government.
That was re-established by the (Christian !!) Vranks, (with its most prominent reprensatative Charlemagne) in the period from ca. 700 to 1000. Also because of the influence of the very important agricultural revolution of the three-field croprotation system, which produced the surplus to give urban live the boost it needed to thrive again as it did in roman times.
You can't call the middle-ages entirely the dark ages. There's very well something to say for the fact that the Renaissance actually began around 1100. That's when the first universities sprang up and roman law was being studied and practiced again. Through the islamic world (Spain, Sicily and Egypt) europe got in touch again with the antique sources.

quote: Originally posted by TacticalGrace on 02-01-2001 08:36 AM 8)Napoleonic Era(after the Napoleonic Wars) Europe was focused on European affairs rather than on colonial affairs)

You are looking at it from too much of an Euro/Western view. Many areas/civilizations had Dark Ages. Other ages you mention (i.e. Renaissance and Napoleanic) are simply from Europe. Yes this ages were important in real history, but what if I never have a Napolean? What if I never lose knowledge? Then I could never have been in these ages which is why I am against these sudden shifts in ages.

Badger,

Your very welcome.

Ralf,

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 02-01-2001 05:33 PM TacticalGrace, You are looking at it from too much of an Euro/Western view. Many areas/civilizations had Dark Ages. Other ages you mention (i.e. Renaissance and Napoleanic) are simply from Europe. Yes this ages were important in real history, but what if I never have a Napolean? What if I never lose knowledge? Then I could never have been in these ages which is why I am against these sudden shifts in ages.

If you read my posting you'll find that NewYorker suggested Dark Ages and Napoleonic and I was saying that these were European-based only (go on. scroll up. have a second look)

not convinced? maybe it was too subtle. Let me make it clearer:

I said:

quote: 8)Napoleonic Era(after the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was focused on European affairs rather than colonial affairs) Again this is a bit of a Europe-centric viewpoint. The Mogols have entered the Napoloenic Era!

quote: 9)Imperialist Era I guess the that Rome and China reached this point a bit earlier than everyone else.

NewYorker was suggesting that the pre-modern era could be called the Imperialist Era. But I was pointing out that Rome and China had what is technically an Imperialist Era (they had Empires) but in a way that doesn't match with the idea of pre-modern.

even more simplified:
these ideas suck

Politics evolves within society, as does technological acheivement ..

Although I don't like the mixing of the two in the original list, I do think it is true to say that a Bronze age democracy is very different to a Modern age Democracy because technology allows us to implement the systems in different ways.. Also, education is a key aspect of how society shapes these ages.

This goes for all politcal systems.. Could a educated country today allow themselves to become Imperialists ? not in the same way as Britain was in the 19/20th Century.

I think Ages should make a difference, both graphical and towards political systems available .. but only if the game player so wants it .. With all things, the user is king, and should decide if he quite likes to be constrained/liberated by age .. or if they just want the graphical aspects of buildings/units from the age ..

My apologies. I read your post the first time but thought that you were in support of the ages that follow. Now that I see that I was wrong, please understand that I was mistaken and that I am truly sorry.

Classical

Mediaeval (Just means middle, so it can apply to all civs.)

Renaissance

Colonial

Industrial

Nuclear (first use of nuclear weapons)

Information (the age of computers and the internet)