#Industrialization should kick in way earlier

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

white bough
#

Hello, guys! It's me again.

The Modern Age is way more fun now than it was before. However, there are certain things that still bother me.

Industrialization, for example, should be one of the very first techs to unlock in this age and it should be necessary to unlock all modernized units. In my current run, I've got landships and dreadnoughts but I haven't built a single factory yet. This is pretty jarring.

I think we could have more than one tech related to industrialization, since historians talk about 1st, 2nd, 3rd and even 4th industrial revolutions. The first one to be unlocked is the one we got in England, in mid 1750s. That's why this tech should be one of the very first tier to be researched.

dim spire
#

I had a similar suggestion from the opposite direction that the units and other gameplay aspects should just reflect the early modern period more:

https://discord.com/channels/1307104947426295818/1447627290644058235

Civ depiction is very skewed towards the middle of the 19th century and earlier, but the game gets to the early 20th century after 1 tech.

I particularly liked the idea of having a proto-industrialization tech with something like textile mills or workshops, given how the Mughals are a base game Civ

white bough
# dim spire I had a similar suggestion from the opposite direction that the units and other ...

I like the idea of taking time in mid 1700s and 19th century before fully embracing 20th century. I actually liked how so many civs and units are inspired by their 19th or 18th counterparts (Mughal, Qin, Russian Empire, etc.) we also have a huge predominsnce of leaders of the said period (Lafayette, Napoleon, Frederick, Catherine, Ada, Harriet, Benjamin, etc ) I think it's a matter of calibrating how everything progresses.

P.S.: this is one of the key arguments I built the concept of sub-ages - that other members here also contributed to.

dim spire
#

Agreed. One of the other things that bothers me is that despite the era being centered on the 19th century, the unit design skips over it. We go right from the late 18th/early 19th century to WW1. I would think unit design would reflect more of the mid century conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War or American Civil War.

(Sorry if this is hijacking your thread)

white bough
white bough
#

I also think that Britain could have bonuses regarding early industrialization. They could start already with industrialization 1 researched, or having like 60% discount. In addition, textile mills and early industries could be cheaper and receive production bonuses. However, late game industries - like in late 19th century and 20th century, they aren't that competitive anymore. Other countries like the US got the upper hand here

pliant brook
#

hello everyone,

I think the Industrial Age could work very well as its own distinct era. The real challenge lies in defining its boundaries: should it end with World War I, or with World War II? From there, a new era of “modernity” could emerge, spanning roughly from the 1950s to around 2050.

Looking toward the future—something Civilization has always enjoyed doing—I hope they avoid predictable choices like giant robots. I’d much rather see something different: perhaps a kind of “ultimate unit,” or even several of them. If there were more than one, this could tie into a new ideological system. Depending on whether you choose a globalist or anti-globalist path, you would gain access to unique technologies and special victory conditions.

white bough
# pliant brook hello everyone, I think the Industrial Age could work very well as its own dist...

I think Professor Hobsbawm's concept of the "Long Nineteenth Century" is elegant and pretty useful as a basis to define the limits for an industrial age. He basically says that the 19th century begins with the French Revolution and ends in WW1. In contrast, he defines the 20th century as a short period, comprised between the end of WW1 and the fall of the Soviet Union. I don't want to be repetitive, but this division, with some adjustments, would fit neatly into the concept of sub-ages. I honestly think that the industrial/modern Age should start with the Industrial Revolution—the 1750s—as I mentioned previously. WW1 should be the turning point, and the latter age should extend to our present day. Here's a link to Professor Hobsbawm's concept: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_nineteenth_century

Long nineteenth century

The long nineteenth century is a term for the 125-year period beginning with the onset of the French Revolution in 1789, and ending with the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. It was coined by the Soviet writer Ilya Ehrenburg and later popularized by the British historian Eric Hobsbawm.
The concept is an adaption of Fernand Braudel's 1949 ...

dim spire
#

I think WW1 as the end point makes sense, but I would put the start point earlier at around 1600. That would allow for covering the peak of more non-European civs. More importantly, IMHO, is that it would cover the enlightenment and age of absolutism.

I appreciate how they drew some parallels between the ideological conflicts of the 19th century and the 20th century, but, IMHO, it’s hard to talk about 19th century without the core conflicts between absolutism and liberalism.

Also, my own personal niche, but it would be funny to draw the line between “Norman England” and “Great Britain” with the English Civil War

white bough
#

@dim spire I was wondering, exploration age should last till 1750. The Renaissance, the early settlement in Americas, the Baroque period, Pirates of the Caribbean and the French- Indian war should be comprised within this time frame.

dim spire
# white bough <@254076159350931457> I was wondering, exploration age should last till 1750. Th...

Agree on the first 2, but not the last. The renaissance and the Iberian colonization should definitely be in Exploration, but the 7 years war is solidly in modern, IMHO.

It’s all squishy, but IMHO, the dividing line (for Civ) between exploration and modern should be with the scientific revolution, military revolution, and enlightenment.

The golden age of piracy, to me, should be somewhat like Hawaii, where by strict periodization it should be modern, but for gameplay reasons is in exploration.

Granted, I’m just playing around to justify the existing Civ distribution. IMHO, “modern” should start in the 17th century to accommodate the Mughals, Ottomans, Qing, and others like Josean if they’re added. But from a euro-centric perspective, adding some more 17th/18th century flair to the first tier of the tech and civic tree would also work well with Prussia, France, Russia, etc. who all also feel a little out of place despite being at the center of the era.

white bough
dim spire
#

To get back to the feedback title, I think stuff like dreadnoughts and land ships should be after factories, but that should be because they’re later in the tech tree with stuff like tanks and aircraft carriers pushed to the 4th age.

IMHO, the narrative of the modern age is about the ascendancy of the industrial European states and the decline of the old empires of Ottomans, Qing, Mughals, etc. that’s reflected in the Civs themselves, the techs and civics just need to ground themselves more in it.

white bough