28-01-2001 08:19									#1
	More Ages Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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).]

	28-01-2001 08:41									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	28-01-2001 09:38									#3
	Put an end to popups!

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

	28-01-2001 12:18									#4
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

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

	28-01-2001 13:35									#5
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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).]

	29-01-2001 00:54									#6
	Got spare money?

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.

	29-01-2001 02:35									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	29-01-2001 02:58									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

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.

	29-01-2001 15:06									#11
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	30-01-2001 01:32									#14
	Support Apolyton

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).]

	30-01-2001 01:34									#15
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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)

	30-01-2001 02:23									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	30-01-2001 05:03									#19
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

wait, your assuming that the game history is goign to be the same? The point of CIV2 is to prevent that

	30-01-2001 23:32									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Ages should definitly be based on the tech tree, and we should have more than 3 ages.

Ages should infact interact with the game. Perhaps by giving us traits (copyrighted Imran © 2000)

	31-01-2001 02:24									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

tniem, I could have written the same message. Thanks for going thru the burden.

	01-02-2001 02:11									#22
	Suffering from ads?

Some of these ages are superflous and not worldwide such as:

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

I agree there shoudld be more styles of cities however.

	02-02-2001 03:33									#25
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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.


Badger,

Your very welcome.


Ralf,

Yes, you are correct, there are more important things to discuss, but I do feel strongly that to just name ages by Western civ standards and force me to join these ages is against what I want in Civ III. And so yes, let us leave it for Firaxis.

	02-02-2001 20:57									#28
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think the issue here is that we are mixing political ages, with technological ages ..

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 ..

------------------
"Wherever wood floats, you will find the British" . Napoleon

	03-02-2001 01:37									#30
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

TaticalGreece,

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.

However, I still stand by what I posted above as being my opinion to an addition of ages that include the Napoleanic, Elizabethan, and any other ages that are based on a person or political idea.