31-12-2003 12:51									#1
	Eras in Civ4? Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

This is a vital question.

I vote yes.

	31-12-2003 13:49									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

I didn't vote, because I think we need a hybrid system. Eras are a good idea, as they allow a very-welcome change in graphics. They also make it simple to start a game with a given set of technologies at disposal.
However, the main weakness of the era system is the lack of flexibility in the tech tree. It is impossible to develop, say, monotheism without first knowing alphabet, or steam engine without first knowing astronomy In short, the era system makes it somehow impossible to really rush on a path (builder or warmonger) at the expense of the other.

A hybrid system would be best: one where the passage from an era to another is very clear, graphically wise and gameplay-wise (if some gameplay features are associated with an era); and such system wouldn't bind the player to research techs in all fields.

	31-12-2003 16:09									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I hate eras.
There's no reason to tie one discovery in one area to another totally unrelated one.
Incas had Astronomy without having iron working. A landbound civ should be unable to develop sailing techs but be able to progress in other areas. Why should they have to research navigation when they live in a desert? Just so they can research gunpowder? What's the rationale there?
As far as graphics are concerned, civ2ToT changed graphics when certain techs were discovered (invention for instance), so you don't need eras to change graphics.

	31-12-2003 16:45									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I hope that with Civ 4 they completely rethink this ERA issue.

I feel that it is a waste of time, agreeing with LDiCesare above.

	31-12-2003 18:17									#5
	Support Apolyton

LDiCesare and Paddy:
I think we should not ditch the era system too quickly. In Civ3, the idea hasn't been used at full potential, as it only served to change graphics and dumb down the tech tree. But there could be good things from having Eras, if the main problem (lack of technological flexibility) is adressed.

The obvious idea that comes to mind is for the setup of quick games. Since Firaxis is now trying to make it possible to play 2-hours long games, more elements from Age of Empires-like games could be used for the fast player. With eras, it makes it possible from the setup of the game on what techs will be immediately available (let's say I want fast action with Tanks, I'll start a game from "modern era" on).
Don't get me wrong, I'm no saying I like fast games, I way prefer the epic ones. But a part of the audience does like short games, so eras are valuable to them.

Another idea could be to tie some gameplay features with an era. Maybe "enslave" units could only work during ancient times, or maybe you get a small production bonus from being in the modern era... I don't have any precise ideas, those are just (lousy) examples of how an "era" could have a real impact.

Your hate of the era system comes from the fact it was badly used, it was purely tech-related, and it forbade you to research techs as you wanted. If this limitation can be lifted, then I think the era system can do more good than harm.

	31-12-2003 18:28									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The era system was bad because it was poorly used, purely tech related, and forbade you from researching as you wanted, true. However, it was also a bad idea.

Everything that you suggest the era system could do, Spiffor, can be done without it. Does Firaxis want to make starting in the modern age an option? They can just select the techs that everyone has during "Modern Start." "Enslave" can work not depending on the era, but on whether or not certain techs have been researched, or milestones reached.

With eras we will always face the problem of one tech per age leading to all or none of the first techs of the next age. History has never ever sliced itself into neat little categories for us, so that the people can say, "Alright, now it's the industrial age... guess we should go about researching industrialization, huh?"

A well designed tech tree is the way to go; eras should place in a good Civ.

One vote, No.

	31-12-2003 19:27									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

While you may disagree about where they sliced, eras has a significant advantage - they kept you at a pretty unanachronistic level of tech. Think about it - did any society invent the steam engine before it had astronomy? While Cavalry may not really need writing, would any civilization have somehow "beelined" to them?

	31-12-2003 23:33									#8
	Tired of ads?

Commrade Tass has a good point.

But even if we agree that anacrhonisms are bad... eras are a terrible way to keep things "right." Especially seeing as this can be done with a carefully crafted technology tree. Certain beelines should probably be impossible, I'll grant you that, but the way to do that is to build a tech tree that naturally prevents certain techs from coming about at the "wrong" time.

There is some discussion in the List - Technology thread about enabling techs, which would be researched independantly of the player control (or not) and allow access to the appropriate advanced technologies.


Even sticking with a Civ 2 style tree though, a well made tree will be better than the artificial slicings of the Era system.

	01-01-2004 00:09									#9
	Put an end to popups!

While I agree that the way erras are is not good, and that a good tech tree will do all that eras currently do and more, I always hate to loose a feature. I will not vote yet, but strongly lean towards getting rid of them because I currently see no use for them. Show me a good use however....

	01-01-2004 02:24									#10
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: With eras, it makes it possible from the setup of the game on what techs will be immediately available (let's say I want fast action with Tanks, I'll start a game from "modern era" on).

You could have a setup "start with how many techs?" (pick a number between 2 and many) and let each civ pick their techs as they would have done had they researched them in-game.

quote: to tie some gameplay features with an era

It's easier to tie this to a tech. CtP2 ties slavery to 2 techs and a wonder for instance. After the wonder is built, noone can use slaves anymore for instance. Techs are simply more versatile than eras. In fact you could have eras in a civ2 tech tree: Just make this era tech require all techs before it (civ2 limits this to 2 requirements but adding intermediary sub-era techs would allow to have more), and is a prereq for all the following techs. Thus eras are not a new feature but a limitation of the existing system.

quote: they kept you at a pretty unanachronistic level of tech

That's wrong. They kept you at an unachrnonistic (eek, what a word!) level of tech from a European point of view. As I said, from an American point of view (Inca) it didn't necessarily make sense. Incas knowledge of mathematics was superior to European Middle Age equivalent. Yet Astronomy is a middle age tech that Incas who didn't have iron working (antiquity) couldn't purchase in civ3. Eras cause anachronisms.

	01-01-2004 03:12									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I voted yes, but only because their wasn't a "hybrid" option... I think for these polls to be meaningful at all, there should be more options.

I could just have easily voted no, though. The current system is a little too constraining, but its better than a bad anachronistic one.

jon.

	01-01-2004 07:35									#12
	Suffering from ads?

I voted yes.

For mod makers the ability to have extra eras is a must have.

We need at least two more, or three if we want a futuristic era.

The first two ages could easily be split into two extra eras.

	01-01-2004 07:39									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

The problem I have with eras is that every single argument for having eras can be implemented without them, and they cause their own problems.

Part of why Civ 3 research is the same most times is the era system... you can't try out a new beeline or go for a vastly different strategy. Want to avoid military altogether and focus on infrastructure? Too bad, finish your era first. Want to research monotheism? Hope you know Construction. How much sense does that make?

Every good thing eras could give you - different graphical looks, mod possibilities, ANYTHING - can be provided more elegantly wihtout eras.

	01-01-2004 08:39									#14
	Inflate your Upload Space

We could make a pretty cool hybrid system. How does this sound?

1. The science advisor looks the same, but instead of 4 screens, you can scroll horizontally to reveal more of the tech tree.

2. Dotted lines are drawn where the new eras come. However, the techs from one age are regular prerequisites for the techs from the next. For example, Flight is required for Rocketry, but not Ecology.

3. Once you have as many techs from the next age as you are missing from your current age, you advance to the next era, city art changes, leaderheads get new outfits, etc. For example, a civ missing three ancient techs that knows three medieval techs will be in the medieval era. However, a civ missing two ancient techs that only knows one medieval tech will still be in the ancient era.

What do you guys think of this?

	01-01-2004 12:46									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior What do you guys think of this?

It looks good, as it keeps the graphical interest of eras (which, in this regard, are superior to tying graphics to the discovery of one or two techs), without hampering the flexibility of the tech tree.

I think most people opposed to eras here do so because they immediately think of Civ3 eras. The way eras are exploited in Civ3 leaves much to be desired, but it doesn't mean the concept of eras altogether deserves a ditching.

	01-01-2004 14:15									#16
	Increase the size of your Attachments

But what does your hybrid system provide?
Different graphics? Civ 2 ToT has that.
What else? There's been no proposal. The only thing I can think of is RoN-like: If you qualify for an area, you can research it, and it will let you build new units or reduce the research cost of the associated techs. This could make sense, but you would have to research the era the way you research techs.

About anachronims:
Let me point it again:
ERAS CAUSE ANACHRONISMS

Examples:
-India has never developped Monotheism. Are they stuck in the Middle Ages?
-Incas had better than Middle Ages Astronomy and no iron age. There's no way civ3 can model this.

Anachronisms can be avoided by a good tech tree. The era system is just a way to hold the tech leader down and let other civs catch up a bit, to prevent the player from choosing the tech they want. In one word, it limits the player's options without providing anything.
Ditch it.

	01-01-2004 18:58									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare About anachronims: Let me point it again: ERAS CAUSE ANACHRONISMS

Wrong. The correct phrasing would be:

CIV3 STYLE ERAS CAUSE ANACHRONISMS[/quote]

You are stuck in believing that eras are doomed to be the rigid frame they were in Civ3. Well, we're talking about Civ4, and we can hope they'll learn from Civ3's mistakes.

	01-01-2004 20:13									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor You are stuck in believing that eras are doomed to be the rigid frame they were in Civ3. Well, we're talking about Civ4, and we can hope they'll learn from Civ3's mistakes.

I agree with this statement, but the idea of eras is a poor one to Laurent and me. Unless it is shown that people mean something besides "a system that forbids you to research early techs in one age until you've finished all of the 'requierd' ones in the previous," I will be against them. This hasn't been done yet on this forum.

They bludgeon any finesse out of the technology game, giving us several inferior tech trees in the place of one better one.

The "hybrid" system that's been mentioned seems to be simply some graphics on the tech tree, which I can hardly oppose as it really isn't "eras." It keeps the concept of different eras to be strictly a mood, and leaves them out of tech requirements entirely. This means a good tech tree with reasonable prerequesites is still needed, so it's fine by me.


Because a good tech tree can be made without eras, putting them in will only serve to dumb down the tech tree.

	01-01-2004 21:31									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor Wrong. The correct phrasing would be: CIV3 STYLE ERAS CAUSE ANACHRONISMS You are stuck in believing that eras are doomed to be the rigid frame they were in Civ3. Well, we're talking about Civ4, and we can hope they'll learn from Civ3's mistakes.

Plus, eras make the science advisor screen much cleaner.

	01-01-2004 23:23									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Noone has explained what an hybrid system was.
In Clash, when you advance in tech, the graphics of a unit can change (e.g. the Siege Engine unit will turn from a ballista graphics to a trebuchet and then a mangonel as siege tech increases). In Civ(1) when you research certain tech, your advisor graphics and city view graphics change. So you don't need eras to change graphics. If you call a tech 'Middle Age', you can have all the effects you want.

So what should be the effect of eras?
-Preventing people from researching techs (civ3): I think it's bad.
-Changing graphics: Techs can do the same.
-What else?

If you want to promote a hybrid system, please fill in the 'what else' clause. Please suggest things that can't be done by a civ2/ctp2-like tech system. I'd like to see how an era can do things a tech can't. You could very well represent Renaissance as a tech. Middle Ages doesn't make as much sense, though.

Here's a suggestion (again): Use eras as Meta techs. Discovering an era would let you have lower costs in the corresponding era tech. This would show the 'synergy' between techs that are not related, thus penalising beelining without hardly preventing them.

What else couldn't be accomplished through techs?

	02-01-2004 00:17									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare So what should be the effect of eras? -Preventing people from researching techs (civ3): I think it's bad. -Changing graphics: Techs can do the same. -What else?

Well put.

	02-01-2004 00:49									#22
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Civ3 used the era system for a little more than just changing graphics and restricting research. The scientific bonus, the barbarian hordes, and music changes come to mind.

The only real complaint there is against eras is their restricting of research, and I think it is a valid one. Industrious civs should be able to get to Engineering before Polytheism. Warlike civs should be able to get Nationalism before Theory of Gravity. Maybe it shouldn't be possible to get to Espionage before Printing Press, but the player should definitely have more leeway.

	02-01-2004 02:36									#23
	Eras in Civ4? I vote no. Put an end to popups!

I voted no, "but only because their wasn't a "hybrid" option"

	02-01-2004 03:10									#24
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Here's a suggestion (again): Use eras as Meta techs. Discovering an era would let you have lower costs in the corresponding era tech. This would show the 'synergy' between techs that are not related, thus penalising beelining without hardly preventing them.

I think this is a great idea. It would promote the sense of a Renaissance/Golden Age/Revolution/Paradigm Shift that comes with a new era, without having the straigh-jacket feeling that comes with mandatory (but unrelated) techs. This idea could also allow for a more fluid transition between eras... say 90% of techs in the previous era triggers the change (20 techs/per era... research 18 to get the new era bonuses).

This will make for a more realistic portrayal of the "combined and uneven development" that exists out here in the real world: its more than possible (in fact, historically its the way things tend to happen) to have societies with industrial or modern technology and/or ideas and not be industrial or modern societies.

jon.

	02-01-2004 03:49									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I forgot one role for the eras:
To show a nicer tech tree.
This can be achieved by organising the techs into groups (eras) wihtout requiring the same 'get all techs before you can continue' thing.

	02-01-2004 05:29									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

True. C3 is the first civ game I know of to actually show the tech tree.

	02-01-2004 05:42									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I agree with LDiCesare. I am not against eras per se, I just don't see the need for them.

I wouldn't mind the implementation of a soft restriction (i.e higher costs) on tech research from an 'era'* to which you have not advanced, rather than the hard restriction currently in place in Civ3.

*You don't need eras just a vague definition of what is considered more advanced than your tech level.

	02-01-2004 08:24									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Not completely related... Having the whole tech tree available to look at as part of the game always was jolting to me. It never sat well.

Thinking about it in a role-play or realism point of view... you would research what is available to you now, rather than in order to get something 1000 years from now.

I know, I know... we would all plan ahead in previous games, and someone would make an Excel file with the tree, etc. Besides, I'm a little off topic. *sigh*

Happy New Year's.

	02-01-2004 08:59									#29
	Support Apolyton

I'm sorry, but I had not choice but to vote "Yes", because my little puny mind cannot simply take so many techs as a whole. I'm sure that most of the purchasing population is the same.

	02-01-2004 09:19									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Fosse Not completely related... Having the whole tech tree available to look at as part of the game always was jolting to me. It never sat well. Thinking about it in a role-play or realism point of view... you would research what is available to you now, rather than in order to get something 1000 years from now.

I agree, its certainly not realistic, and it won't ever be unless it is possible to make a randomised or unique tech tree for each game. But then not knowing what your research will lead to would screw around too much with the playability of the game IMO.