Historic dates for Civ3 ages

[White Pine]

How would you date the Civ3 ages? Specifically, where is the border between the ancient and medieval ages, between medieval and industrial, and between industrial and modern.
The following is how I seperated the ages. I chose military technology to devide the ages, but you may want to use other technologies.

Ancient to Medieval 1300
The cannon is the weapon the best sets the medieval age apart for me. The cannon was developed in the first decade of 14th century (according to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, War, Technology of, my source for this thread). Before the invention of the cannon, siege warfare was very long and costly. The besiegers often ran out of supplies before the besieged. There were many siege weapons known to the ancients, but none were effective at breaching stone walls.
Shoulder guns did not appear on the battlefield until the matchlock firing mechanism came on the scene in about 1425. It would take until about 1550 before the musket and pike combination became dominant in European warfare.
Other of the Civ3 military units came on the historic scene before 1300, but nothing which made the bang that gunpowder did. Longbowman, knights, and war elephants all predate 1300, but none of their technologies seems epoch making to me. Aside, does anyone else get the feeling that computer strategy game designers are enthralled by war elephants (Civ2, Civ3, AoE2)? Elephants do not like loud noises or sharp points and were almost as likely to trample friend as foe.

Medieval to Industrial 1849
The Minie rifle (1849) changed the face of battle. It was the first rifle which could be effectively used in battle, because it could be loaded as fast as a musket. The Minie rifle had an effective range of five times that of a smothbore.
Another possible date for the begining of the in industrial age is 1830, since the industrial revolution began about 1830 in England.

Industrial to Modern 1945
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki set the modern age apart for me. Aside, I think that the Civ3 designers dropped the ball by not including a guerrilla unit. Guerrilla warfare has been the most important type of warfare since 1945, in my humble opinion. The colonial wars of liberation after WWII, the hot wars of the Cold war period, and most of the wars today (e.g. Israeli-Palestinian) were mostly fought be guerrillas on at least one side.

Write in and tell me what you think seperates the ages.


:lol::)

[Grrr]

Those ages are pretty much right. I'd put the modern age a little earlier into WWII but thats all.

[Coracle]

Cannons did not start seeing widespread use until well into the 13th century, for sieges.

Before that the TREBUCHET had already made castles rather vulnerable. The trebuchet was far superior to a catapult hulrling a huge stone (big enough to knock holes in any wall) well over 200 yards - and that was out of effective bow range.

Firaxis excluding the trebuchet from the Units is another problem with the game. Heck, we can always change the useless helicopter to a trebuchet: all bombardment units get a few extra points, and the trebuchet falls between catapult and cannon.


War elephants should be 3.1.2 and at slightly cheaper cost. They were terrible on defense, and problematic on offense. They also should NOT have airlift capability!

We had guerrilla/partisans in Civ 2. If you slightly Edit Explorer making it a bit stronger it can have the same effect. Great for harassment and pillaging.

All post-gunpowder units must be stronger.

[Grrr]

Elephants can be airlifted! That's a bit like loading 2 tanks onto a trireme.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Grrr
Elephants can be airlifted! That's a bit like loading 2 tanks onto a trireme.

Just look in the Editor.

Firaxis shows its CONTEMPT for us by not changing such stupidities as airlifting CAVALRY, MODERN ARMOR, WAR CHARIOTS, and elephants - but NOT allowing airlifting of a single Leader!

They also have kept their stupid unit values, one of the worst being cruise missiles having a range of only '2'!!

BTW, according to the rules there is indeed nothing in the dopey rules to prevent tanks from loading on galleys - the same galleys that can sail in OCEANS after a few advances are reached.

[Grrr]

Leaders can't be airlifted??? I have never tried.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Grrr
Leaders can't be airlifted??? I have never tried.

Check that Editor. Arrogant Firaxis has made no change in their insane airlifting rules. We have to waste time Editing, Editing!

[Grrr]

That is incredibly stupid! Damn all the hard coding in CivIII.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Coracle, I'm with you (although with other priorities than airlift capabilities, then again, the list of desperately needed approvals is still rather large)!

Don't like editing everything myself neither ...





Firaxis, aren't you ashamed that this popular product that's sold all over the world is now followed up by IIRC only TWO PROGRAMMERS ??????????

You'll lose ... even faster than you can imagine ... don't you feel the heat of the competition?

You could have changed a lot more.

AJ

Ps: Can someone inform me about the correct starting locations on world maps that was requested by so many before? Two/three months ago I remember Mike was 'working' on it ...

And don't start about the editor again, please ...

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Whoops, I'm sorry White Pine, this isn't what your thread is about.

Your idea about 'milestones' to separate ages is very good IMO.

Programming this might be an answer to 'spaceship arrival in 1200AD': once you get a certain tech, you make a 'jump' to the according time in real life history.

Turns remain turns, but this better timetable could be easily implemented I suppose ...



AJ

[Grrr]

Wouldn't that put an end to the game ending in 2020 though. Wouldn't that mean that I could play forever providing I don't research future technology.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Coracle
They also have kept their stupid unit values, one of the worst being cruise missiles having a range of only '2'!!

Well, by definition a "cruise" missile has a maximum range of 300 km. After this, you call it a "ballistic" missile.
300-1500 km = short range ballistic missile
1500-5500 km= medium range
5500+ km = long range

Hope it clears things out.

[Grrr]

A cruise Missle with a range of two isn't going to clear much out though.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by Grrr
A cruise Missle with a range of two isn't going to clear much out though.

Especially since you'll have to dive into the editor to make it actually kill/destruct something.

Aren't missiles referred to as 'weapons of (mass) destruction' in real life?

AJ

[Grrr]

Yeah. And they should not really have the same damage each time. If you hit a ship in the right place, it will sink first time, yet you can also throw 16 missiles at it and it wont sink.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR


Especially since you'll have to dive into the editor to make it actually kill/destruct something.

Aren't missiles referred to as 'weapons of (mass) destruction' in real life?

AJ

Well, "weapons of destruction" is reduntant, unless someone can point out a weapon that builds a house (although in the wizard of oz...). So, the question becomes "mass". Well, I personaly don't find the stinger to be that big a threat to entire city blocks, so I would say no. If you mean "cruise missles", I would think that depends on their payload. But by and large, a tomahawk cruise missle is not considered a weapon of mass destruction...

[PhoenixPhlame73]

Weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons becuase they can do massive damage and don't cost nearly as much to biuld as conventional forces.

[White Pine]

Thanks to Coracle for your comments on trebuchets, war elephants, and guerrillas. Trebuchets were super-catapults which operated via counter balance. The range of a trebuchet was much farther than that of a traditional catapult. Trebuchets were capable of hurling missiles over castle walls. One intersting use of a trebuchet demonstrates an early form of biological warfare. The carcase of a diseased cow would be thrown over the castle wall. Unfortunately, the trebuchet had the same basic flaw as the catapult in attacking a stone wall intself. Stones thrown from the trebuchet would fly in a steep arc and hit the castle wall on the descent. These stones would easily richochet off the wall. Imagine skipping stone across a calm pond. If the stone comes in at a steep angle it will sink, but if it comes in at a very narrow angle it will skip. Cannon balls were able to hit the wall at nealy a 90 degree angle, and eventually bring down the wall. I agree with you that cannons were not used effectively until later in the 14th century. The successful siege of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks in 1453 definately signaled a new era in fortresses for European powers.
I would very much like to see the Civ3 creators do more with guerrillas. If Civ3 creators want to simulate late 20th century warfare anywhere near accurately then guerrillas combined with war weariness should be able to win a war.

[Random Passerby]

I think your cut-off for ancient is waaaaay too late. Although you can beeline to Metallurgy fairly quickly, I think cannons were intended to show up in the middle-to-late Middle Ages--instead of looking at something that comes in six techs into the age (assuming you ignore everything else, which actually isn't a bad strategy but probably wasn't intended to be so effective), look at the starter techs instead. Monotheism was definitely "in" in Western culture by the time the Roman Empire dissolved, and feudalism grew out of that fairly quickly. Engineering is a bit sketchier, as I'm not sure exactly what it's supposed to represent, but given its placement in the tech tree I think it's fair to place it as falling under the same general period as the other two techs. You could place the cutoff on these criteria as early as 400-500 A.D., though things get muddled once you get past the age's starter techs--Longbowmen appearing at the same time as da Vinci, for example, and I'd say that Education should probably be a couple centuries before the Sistine Chapel (universities weren't widespread that early, of course, but then it takes a while to get the things built anyways). The Middle Ages in general make for sloppy bookkeeping of this sort, because at that point in the game time is still moving in large chunks per turn and the tree has a lot of variation possible. Still, I'd say around 800 A.D. or maybe 1000 at the latest for the cut-off between ancient and medieval in game terms.

The start for the Industrial Age does bug the heck out of me; I really don't think Steam Power should be a starter tech. One second you're playing with lodestones and getting bonked on the head with falling apples, the next you have ironclads. Still, I think your cut-off there is about as good as you can get. 1945 also seems fair for Industrial to Modern; yeah, a year or two earlier into WWII would make sense, but 1945's a nice round number and a much more clear-cut date.

[White Pine]

Thanks to Random Passerby for your edifying remarks. I think you are right about setting back the date for the ancient to medieval transition. You mentioned the three starter technologies for the medieval age: monotheism, feudalism, and engineering. I don't understand monotheism as being a medieval technology. Abraham, the father of monotheism, lived about 2000 B.C. The Civilopedia refers to feudalism as a social heirarchy based on fealty. The baron owes fealty (alliegance) to the king, the knight owes fealty to the baron, and the serf owes fealty to the knight. The civilopedia mentions feudalism as starting with the breakup of the Carolingian empire, c. 9th century. The civilopedia refers to engineering as military engineering including building roads, bridges, and fortifications. Military engineering existed well into antiquity, so it is hard to hang your hat on a date for medieval military engineering, but the 11th century might work. After conquering the holy lands, most of the crusaders went home. This meant that only a few unlucky crusaders stuck around for the thankless task of defending the holy lands. Their answer was to build some of the largest castles to date. The castles didn't hold off the moslem armies, but they did improve the castle building technology of Europe.
I prefer the feudalism date as the starting point for the medieval age. It just feels more medieval. The Carolingian empire was divided into three parts (roughly France, Germany, and Italy) at the treaty of Verdun in 843. That year might work for our purposes.
A final comment on the medieval tech tree. The cannon can be gained after five tech advances, while the musket man can be gained after only three, but historically the cannon was developed about 100 years before the infantry gun, aka hand cannon.

[GeneralTacticus]

I'd say that Education should probably be a couple centuries before the Sistine Chapel (universities weren't widespread that early, of course, but then it takes a while to get the things built anyways).

Just because you get the tech for a wonder doesn't mea you've built it yet. Just assume that while they were building the Sistine Chapel they were researching Education. Of course they hadn't really started yet, but how realistic is it that it can take thousands of years to build a wonder?

[Tingkai]

Yoru timings are all Euro-centric. How do you fit these ages into a global picture?

The industrial age starts earlier than 1845. I would suggest 1839, the year the Opium War started. British industrial power is able to defeat the Ching dynasty. Then again, the Napoleanic Wars reflects European nation's abilty to supply large armies on a scale not seen before.

[Nym]

Well, I'm not sure it's a good idea to try separating eras by dates. In fact I think the christian date system is not adequate for such a game. It could be a good reference mark, but each game is different from the others and from our History. IMHO it would be more interesting to count years from the foundation of our first city (like the Romans in real History) or more simply from the beginning of the game.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by White Pine
... I prefer the feudalism date as the starting point for the medieval age. It just feels more medieval. The Carolingian empire was divided into three parts (roughly France, Germany, and Italy) at the treaty of Verdun in 843. That year might work for our purposes.

In Belgian education (I suppose same goes up for most European colleges) Medieval era is/has always been determined by the fall of the Western Roman Empire (AD 476) and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (AD 1453, Constantinople) -->

5th --> 15th century

You're right about feodalism: firstly introduced by Charles Martel
(didn't have money, so lent grounds to knights to build up first European knights army that defeated the Arabs in AD 732 at Poitiers), it became a tradition during the 9th and 10th centuries (dangerous times in Western Europe caused by the repeated attacks bu Vikings, Arabs and Hungarians) and started vanishing in the 11th century, as trade revived and the Crusades took off.

AJ

[cephyn]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR


In Belgian education (I suppose same goes up for most European colleges) Medieval era is/has always been determined by the fall of the Western Roman Empire (AD 476) and the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire (AD 1453, Constantinople) -->

5th --> 15th century

You're right about feodalism: firstly introduced by Charles Martel
(didn't have money, so lent grounds to knights to build up first European knights army that defeated the Arabs in AD 732 at Poitiers), it became a tradition during the 9th and 10th centuries (dangerous times in Western Europe caused by the repeated attacks bu Vikings, Arabs and Hungarians) and started vanishing in the 11th century, as trade revived and the Crusades took off.

AJ

Here at my university (university of California at Santa Barbara) my prof this quarter is making a strong, strong case for the middle ages starting not with the "fall" of Rome (in 476) but much later, with the rise of Charlemagne and the rise of the Carolingians in the 700s. Much of the world was still very tied into the old Roman way of life, trade and infrastructure until the mid 600's to early 700's, when full shifts towards a more European Middle Ages model finally solidified. Charlemagne and his reign was the capstone on that shift.

As for the end of the middle ages, in europe it happened much earlier than in other places...for example, i'd say that in Japan, the middle ages ended in 1868 with the fall of the Tokugawa and the Meiji Restoration. In Europe, its hard to date, but I wouldnt put it as early as 1453. I much better like the date of 1517, the date Martin Luther nailed the 95 theses to the door in Wittenburg.

[Akka]

The "official" end of the Middle-age is still subject to discussions.
Some says it's 1453 because Constantinople fell.
Some argue that it should be 1453, but because of the Castillon battle which marked a turn in warfare with the massive use of artillery.
Finally, a last group think it should be 1492, because of the discovery of America by Colombus.
I suppose it's each one his choice

[Signa]

The ancient era ended with the final fall of Rome. Feudalism developed from Charlemagne, etc...

Middle ages ended with Napolean. He spread nationalism and enlightenment ideals and spurred industrial growth in all world powers...

Industrial ages ended with the dropping of the bomb. Plane and simply here.

[cephyn]

Originally posted by Signa
The ancient era ended with the final fall of Rome. Feudalism developed from Charlemagne, etc...

Middle ages ended with Napolean. He spread nationalism and enlightenment ideals and spurred industrial growth in all world powers...

Industrial ages ended with the dropping of the bomb. Plane and simply here.

yeah i just take issue with your end of hte ancient era. Fall of Rome (476) and Charlemagne (800) is a long time in between. And many of the intermediate rulers, as well as lifestyle, was still very Roman oriented -- Theodoric, for example, continued building in the Roman style. And trade was still very centered around the Mediterranean.

Middle Ages end with Napoleon? thats AWFULLY late, and i think most would agree -- by that logic, the United States was founded during the Middle Ages....

No problems with your industrial age end. 8) as a good a time as any.

[Giovanni August]

The problem of ending the Medieval Age and starting the Industrial Age is that there is a huge gap in between.

In my book the Medieval Ages ended in 1492 with the discovery of America.
But after that there is no "Industrial Age" but there is the "Reinessance Age". Than there is the Illuministic Age.
I would guess that the first one fall more into the Medieval Age style.

Therefore I would start the Industrial Age with the American or the French Revolution.

Just my two cents.

Saluti

[Nym]

In France it would be somehing like that:

• -> 476 AD (Fall of Rome) : Ancient Era
• 476 AD -> 1453 AD (Fall of Constantinople) : Middle Age
• 1453 AD -> XVII century (not very clear) : Renaissance
• XVIII-XIX centuries : Industrial Era
• XX century : Modern Era

But of course it can then subdivided.