Or I should say, Golden Ages AS IMPLEMENTED are a bad idea.

Why? Because Golden Ages, with their obvious economic benefit (+1 trade, +1 shield in all squares) are triggered by an event of no evident relation: a (strategically random) victory by a given military unit.

Consider: I am the Babylonians and the Bowman (2/1/2) is my special unit. I build my first one. Now I'm in the absurd position of declaring war on an enemy (even if i don't really want a war) or tracking down some barbarian unit and inflicting a good beating ... all so I can experience my economic renaissance. Of course I could wait until later in the game but if I'm the Babylonians I face the difficulty of winning combat against much more modern units with my obsolete bowman if I wait too long. That would result in sneaking my bowman around, hiding them from much stronger units and waiting until I can ambush a hapless diplomat, explorer, or the like. Also, what happens if I build Leo's? Will it upgrade my bowman even if they haven't won in combat yet, thus losing my chance to win forever and experience my Golden Age? Can Leo's actually work against me?

Does all this plotting about when & how I win my first bowman unit combat seem absurd to anyone else? The problem is the folks at Firaxis took the cause/effect relationship between the famous units of great civilizations in their golden age and turned it on its head. (And this gets back to the failure in logic that undermines the entire implementation of "special units" in the game, much discussed here.) F-15s did not make the Americans a great civilization. They certainly haven't increased trade or industrial output! Rather, F-15s are highly respected weapons because American society has the wealth and industrial capacity to manufacture them and support a cadre of highly trained pilots.

Special units are the product of a civilization at it's apex (i.e. a civ in its Golden Age). Golden ages don't result from a special unit!

All this said, I'm not sure what I would chose (from a gameplay perspective) to trigger a Golden Age, except that I would tie it in some fashion to the economic/cultural/military status of a civ. Once a golden age occurred it might THEN be an interesting result if my most modern military unit of the time was regarded by the world as a "special" unit, with the resulting advantages in combat.

I think the real problem with golden ages is their arbitrary placement. Just as Heffalump said, they should be based on the economic conditions of the civilization.

Does it make sense for the US to have its golden age in 1980 if it lost World War Two and became a petty fascist dictatorship? Does it make sense for Rome to have its golden age in 500 AD because Roman science was 700 years behind in inventing Iron Working?

Civ specific abilities in general have the terrible flaw that they are based on OUR history. It would make sense that Rome has a 1 AD golden age if other historical trends are in place, but this level of realism was judged (perhaps rightly) as too sophisticated. Firaxis did everything backwards by forcing the golden age into a specific place.

The unit-combat trigger cannot make sense because it is not logical!


------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

[This message has been edited by ERIKtheRED (edited August 13, 2001).]

I have to disagree with you here - golden ages are great in their current form

What they do is set the golden age of a civ around the time that civ is susing its unique unit: so the romans get an early golden age: by playing them you get an early bonus and can be big at the start.
However if you played germans your golden age would come later - so do you want a golden age with a few cities early on or a lot late on? - tactics.

They also make historical sense - no the empires golden age was not linked to the winning of a combat and was very much like you said made by a lot of factors however the civ is at its power at the time the UU exists so linking it to the UU is sensible

And aobut the combat -looking at these barbarians I think you will have ample oppurtunity for war

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

look. the Babylonians is a Old culture and Civ. Imagine yourself a Baby as you did; now, you walk around with your newly designed "bowman" and you shoot down a guy walking by. Wow you think to yourself, damn this is good!!!... So starts the golden age of that culture, they are happy and satisfyed with the results of their special invention, the bowman. Now obviously the benefits will be different when compared to an american golden age - with their discovery of the F-15, but an early push will always better than a late one. Maybe that 20 turns in early history will detertain the game, where as the plus 1 shield and trade to America in the 20th century would not have as big of impact.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

No warandpeace because if the americans, or germans, or russians or whoeve have
+1 trade and +1 production in each square in the late game they will increase there trade by a whole lot (lots of squares and lots of improvements to make use of extra trade - so they cna gian the upper hand on the babylonians who have no such bonus while having fantastic fighters or tanks till the end of the game

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

The following is taken from www.civ3.com: (http://www.civ3.com:)


Golden ages only occur once, last twenty game turns, and are triggered when any one of your civ-specific units wins its first combat against another civ.


Notice that it sais "...against ANOTHER CIV." Can we take this to mean that beating a barbarian is not enough, but that we actually need to declare war to trigger the golden age? Or are barbarians regarded a civ?

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:

Does it make sense for the US to have its golden age in 1980 if it lost World War Two and became a petty fascist dictatorship? Does it make sense for Rome to have its golden age in 500 AD because Roman science was 700 years behind in inventing Iron Working?

The unit-combat trigger cannot make sense because it is not logical!




Bah, in reply to your comment I think it is quite logical. Civ the game cannot bend to history because it is not history. Restricting chronological events of when they occur is an impossibility.
So how else should one imply the use of golden age? Simple. By imagining yourself a Civ which has put their entire faith upon an invention and it does well enough to boost moral and production, as well trade.
You gave the example of Romans enjoying a golden age is absurd because iron has been invented 700 years before. But I think you forget that they celebrate not Iron, nor the invention of Iron. BUt how they've used Iron to such a degree as to perfect the best unit to be made from the combination iron and man.
They are proud about it; however it does not guarantee an golden age... For as you've said in your scenario, that iron has been invented and 700 years has gone by, which means that Roman Legion must find another proper unit for himself, when everything else is bigger and stronger than him... Quite Logical.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

Originally posted by Graeme the mad:
No warandpeace because if the americans, or germans, or russians or whoeve have
+1 trade and +1 production in each square in the late game they will increase there trade by a whole lot


Hmmm, I like to see any of those Civs you've mentioned still alive to build factories when their miserable villages 2000 years ago were encircled by armies of unique archers and wild phalanxes.

Plus what game will there be left for the Babylonians when they are already smaller than their antagonists in the late game, not to mention when Panzer tanks are installed?

Like I said before, use your benefits against the ones who has none. If you can assume Panzer tanks could kill me (Babylonians)in the late game. Then I will assume my archers can rape your civ before they can walk.
Take their cities before culture and nationalities disadvantages kick in. And hog as much land and resource as possible. There will be left for a big WW, not to mention threats of modern devices working against me.


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

Hey people!
I love CIv3 and I am sure that it is a great game BUT all that 'golden age', 'special unit', 'super human leaders' are good only in scenarios... I never play scenarios so I thank designers that I can switch that option off.
How can you compare golden age for Babylonians (4-5 cities) to Americans (20-~) cities??!! This is just STUPID!!!!!
And do not give me that crap that Americans may not survive to use their golden age adventage!!!!

Originally posted by jedi rat:
Hey people!
I love CIv3 and I am sure that it is a great game BUT all that 'golden age', 'special unit', 'super human leaders' are good only in scenarios... I never play scenarios so I thank designers that I can switch that option off.
How can you compare golden age for Babylonians (4-5 cities) to Americans (20-~) cities??!! This is just STUPID!!!!!
And do not give me that crap that Americans may not survive to use their golden age adventage!!!!

lol okay, u win http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif



------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

Originally posted by Heffalump:

Special units are the product of a civilization at it's apex (i.e. a civ in its Golden Age). Golden ages don't result from a special unit!


exactly...

i also echo what jedi rat says about "How can you compare golden age for Babylonians (4-5 cities) to Americans (20-~) cities??!!"

im just glad you can turn it off
MM

In response to WarandPeace's statement that the victory of their military units enspires the empire to a golden age.

Yes, you can rationalize it that way, but your rationalization is not logic- in an explanation for a system which is backwards.

As for my examples: a defeated, United States defeated in WW2 would not have a golden age-- Germany and Japan would have a golden age. A Rome that didn't develop Iron until 500 AD would not have a golden age-- they would have been killed by the Barbarians long ago.

The reasons nations have golden ages are because they have stong leadership, a strong economy and the nation is united towards a goal. The Roman legions are famous because they had a successful nation behind then. Mousilini's Bersalglieri aren't Rome's special unit, because Italy was pathetic in WW2. The social conditions of a nation cause a golden age-- NOT UNITS!

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I agree golden ages are a bad idea, just like I think civ-specific units (at least as they are) are a bad idea. The beauty of this game is that you can make your OWN history, on a map totally unlike the earth, etc. You can be Zulus sharing the same continent as the Chinese, becoming the greatest superpower in the world, etc. It's all up to YOU.

IF we have special units, they should evolve due to circumstance: for instance, if you're situated on an island and you develop a big navy as a result, you could get a special ship (like the Japanese dreadnought). If you develop on vast plains, you could get a certain elite cavalry (like the Mongols did), etc. OR perhaps you could choose your own time to go for a special unit invention, out of a list of possible ones. When you have a tech, you can choose to go for its related special, or wait until something more favorable to your situation comes along....

In short, if I'm playing as the Mongols and I find I'm on an island in an archipelago, not only will the special horse unit be pretty useless to me, why would I have even the advantage to build such a thing (no wide open steppes to perfect my equestrians on)? Special units should reflect your circumstances, and how your civ would evolve given those.

As for "golden ages", perhaps a period of extended peace and economic growth should trigger that, not a war. People think of "golden ages" as times when people were happy and prosperous, not fighting....

Originally posted by Papa Lazarou:
exactly...

i also echo what jedi rat says about "How can you compare golden age for Babylonians (4-5 cities) to Americans (20-~) cities??!!"

im just glad you can turn it off
MM

omg, obivously you have not read my entire msg and result in posting these garbage.
Let me give you an example, shall we?
a buck 50 years ago is worth around (maybe I dunno) 20 bucks of todays money.
Get that concept in your head!
Although we are not dealing with economics, the comparison is a sound one!
The effect of early actions can devastate the future...


Lets say, you kill two out of the entire five village which the Americans control early in the game, that mean those two dead villages are unable to make new settlers for more villages. American's power to multiply and grow is hindered -- if you don't kill them with your unique weapon at least you've crippled them. This can have a tremendous effect in the later game. (Follow along here), as you have more villages than him you could expand and establish a your empire large enough, early enough, that whatever effective weaponry the more sophisticated countries might own will be useless. Do you think 20 regular tanks cant kill a German Panzer? How about 20 tanks vs no tanks since you control most of the resources in your territory WHICH YOU HAVE CONQUERED EARLY IN THE GAME. Can someone tell me why this will not work? I remember when someone said in one the early thread, that the Babylonians are good for rushing. They could rush because they have the advantage of unit superiority and the flux of golden age as result of it.
Get it in your head.

Now I'm not saying under the correct leadership (player), that the Germans or Americans could not survive the early games unhindered, but all these of my points are trying to make you guys understand that the game is not unbalanced, that the Babylonians are not "unplayable". Just think about that before making any rash comments.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

I really like the idea (allan's) about having special units related to stating positions, but it conflicts with special units being linked to a culture. Iroquois Panzers just would't be the same.

Those expansionist/ militarist/ religious modifiers might be better to link to the starting terrain. Modifiers might include seafaring, horseraising and irrigating.

Perhaps Golden Ages could be modified by civ specific abilities, and triggered similarly. (I am against civ abilities and golden ages, but this would be an improvement) A military civ would perhaps have a combat/ capture enemy cpaital trigger, and the effect would be to double the military advantages for twenty turns. A civ might have two golden ages! After the military golden age, high trade production could trigger a doubling of the commercial modifier for twenty turns.

If civ specific abilities were based on
1. starting position
2. playing style in the first 1000 years
then we would eliminate all problems!

I'm making this a new thread in suggestions and ideas.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

MR WarandPeace
I like to discuss things with you!!!
AT first economics:
Of course $1 is not worth the same today, as it was 50 years ago. I think some call it: an inflation. I have never thought much about inflation in the game, but I am quite confident that this does not work exactly the same as devaluation of currency.
Second: You assume that you find and kill those “later benefit civs”. My question is: DO you play that game to kill most of you rivals in first 10 turns? hmm…. I do not think so.
On the other hand let say you play with Americans, how will you defend against all those Babylonian archers and Roman legions? I would get really frustrated if I cannot develop my civ because others are more gifted (by GOD?!?!) That what real life is about and I play games to escape the reality and for a while be equal to the best. I can stand and I have power to fight them!!!

I'm tired of quoting so I'll just say this to you Erik.

What you think are not logical I dont care.
You take logic in the broad sense of truth repersentation. To me logic means a chain of events which will determain an answer. And btw, Logic is not truth.

When you said Units don't cause golden age, but you don't give a better solution.


I think the game uses history as a fair guide to it's golden age.
By history I mean the time of which a civilization is at it's peak, and there by taking out an unit from that time period as a trigger. Golden age does not exactly have to do with society and the leader or whatever factors you think it should be obtained before bursting into a golden age.

It is just a concept of the GAME, it's not real life nor a history lesson, you're idea of having everything in a state of perfection is a utter nonsense, because you would never know when that point will be in an undetermained game.
And even if you set a point upon which a number of cities, money, shield, will result in a golden age then modern civs like americans will have their golden ages before their historical existance.


------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

Answer to your first statement: I made the point of the significance of early actions in history. The earlier you have something the better state you'll be for the future. Just like the more money you had before will worth more later.

A to Second: I DO assume I could kill someone if given enough time for me to have the upperhand -- the unique archers, and golden age that follows. I never said the number 10, about the faster the better.

2nd half of Second: Hmmm I thought I said it is possible to defended with the experienced player!!!! Dude if you don't respect my ideas then that's fine, but don't give me this crap when you start posting before knowing what you're talking about.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by WarandPeace (edited August 14, 2001).]

WarandPeace
I think there is more war in you then peace- hehe
OK let’s have a beer!
The bottom line is you like the idea of golden ages and special units and I am not so sure about that till I test it. There is no reason to argue more about that issue- maybe next topic?
All the best!

Golden Age shouldn't be based on military conquest alone. Rather, it should be based on a combination of military, economical and cultural accomplishment.

Golden Age is reached when an unusually high number of military conquest, economical expansion or cultural accomplishment are made in a period of given number of turns.

WarandPeace:

I did propose an alternative: golden ages should occur when a high point has been achieved in a specific area.

As for History: I do not want a replication of history, but I do want a simulation of history's processes. My model, in my opinion, does this quite well.

My model allows the Americans to have a golden age before they really existed? Yes, but that is because the game puts the americans in from 4000bc. I would prefer they appear in 1750 so perhaps we can agree that it should be possible that a civil war could sprout a powerful nation at around this point in history.

If you do not care if civ3 has any similarity to history, you can play chess. But civ3 attempts to be a historical simulation, and I believe my proposal would make it more realistic. Whenever people tell me its just a game, that it doesn't matter if it's even vaguely like history as long as the player has control of a collection of cities, I am distraught. I believe that civ is a game of history-- a history you can create, but a history that is consistent with how I know the world works.

Are nuclear weapons not available at the beggining of the game only because this would destroy gameplay? No, because civ is an ever improving attempt to model the path of civilization. If you feel that my model is flawed, explain how. If you feel I am a fool for proposing a model, don't reply at all.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I'll take you up on that Jedi <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>
We'll get foster's lol
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/beerchug.gif" border=0>
if you believe me, I dont even care about golden age or what not, maybe just for the spice of arguing i suppose <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by WarandPeace (edited August 14, 2001).]

WarandPeace has it right about the benefits of early vs. late Golden Ages. You don't have to go to war to gain an advantage, you just have to grow. Your civilization should be growing exponentially, at least in the early game. Let's say you double in size every 40 game turns. An advantage that gives you two more cities early on will be worth as much as one that gives you four cities 40 turns later, or one that gives you eight cities 80 turns later. (Of course, later in the game you might invest in things other than new cities, but the principle is the same.)
A Golden Age early gives you less payoff, but more time to invest it. A Golden Age later gives you a greater payoff, but less time to invest it. It all balances out, which is the trademark of a Sid Meier game.

This is how the whole idea of the Golden age must have sprung up at Firaxis:
Developer 1: Hey, I'm bored, let's do something really stupid for a change huh huh
Developer 2: Ye, ye, stupid, ye, let's do Golden Ages as we did it ye!

I mean, all, that's been said before (that this concept is backwards and millitant) I have two thoughts to share:

1. Did you notice that Golden Age (regardless of how it's triggered) will occur only once per game? And last a finite no. of turns? As for me it really kills my play style which is based on the old rules of the Golden Age (I try hard to have a very happy population as long as it's possible - "the city is holding a celebration in your honor my Lord"). 75% of cities having a celebration for min 5 trns (10trns for Diety lvl) would constitute a Golden Age for me, and then I would be happy to reap the rewards (be it increased morale, commerce, science or - especially - culture). And try hard as hell to keep it up as long as is possible.

2. How come the Firaxis team discards so easily some great concepts that they already have explored? If they want to make a nation distinguishable, they can allot other stats, it has already been so beautifully executed in SMAC. There is really a difference between Spartans and Gaians. And the special units are only an outcome of these special stats.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 14, 2001).]

I agree with Heffalump's original assessment. I think the Golden Age idea is a good one, but executed poorly.

Let's never forget that Civilization (I, II and III) is a STRATEGY game. We play it for hours on end because we love the strategy involved. I think that too many people are hung up on the historical accuracy issue. Civilization is not a movie - it's a game! It doesn't have to be historically accurate. That said, it does make for a better game when the game is historically accurate as long as it doesn't affect game play.

For this reason, I feel that what aught to be done with "Golden Ages" is to make them user-selectable. A single twenty turn "burst" selectable at any time during the game that you choose. It could work similarly to what we do now with revolutions - just pull down the menu and select "Start Golden Age".

Without this user-selectivity, what will ineveitably happen is that we're going to figure out which civ has the best timed Golden Age and we'll all clamor for that civ in multiplayer games.

After all, isn't the premise of the game to take YOUR civilization and control it the way YOU want to? Why be constrained with historical limitations. http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/shakehead_ron.gif

I don't know if someone has already mentioned this, but just turn the option off. I will be playing without special units the first time(s) through.

Why are all you people saying your playing with special units and golden ages off cos their so bad

Their not their great - it actually gives you a differnece in strategys in civ3 from the word go - great idea.
For instance Dd you want to pick the babylonians who though they get a golden age early may not get it due to lack of civs nearby or wait ages for the russian one which u r likely to get but not for ages - see different styles of play, determined by civ.
iF u r behind in tech you may not get it at all - so youd better be prepared for that

The golden age is a fantastic idea and nearly makes up for nowonder videos http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/frown.gif
It worked well in AOE and the UU's worked well in AOk - now I know these were not turn based but even so I think this adds great depth to the game.
If you dont want to have them on fine, dont, but I think your as stupid as those people who turned on simplified comat in civ2 because it was a change - give it a chance people - and it wil be great

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

[This message has been edited by Graeme the mad (edited August 14, 2001).]

Originally posted by Pembleton:
I don't know if someone has already mentioned this, but just turn the option off. I will be playing without special units the first time(s) through.


The only problem with this is that now I don't get any Golden Ages. And I might actually deserve one! If I've built up a beautifully crafted, powerful, advanced and stable civilization, I want a Golden Age. I played hard and I earned it! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smokin.gif

IF your powerfula and everything you already have one

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

Hey WarandPeace I knew that you are a good man and after "few ones" the 'peaceful' side will take over the 'war' one. I do not care much about all them as well , but I will disable those ..... golden ages!!! hehehe

Sorgon.
I like your concept and I thought about that, but... I am not so sure if the "balance" "invest now-profits later" and vice versa will be ...'balanced'.
Anyway time will show if that is a good option or not.

Originally posted by Squirrel:
The following is taken from www.civ3.com: (http://www.civ3.com:)

Notice that it sais "...against ANOTHER CIV." Can we take this to mean that beating a barbarian is not enough, but that we actually need to declare war to trigger the golden age? Or are barbarians regarded a civ?


As it currently stands, defeating a barbarian unit with your special unit does not trigger your Golden Age. I don't know if there are plans to allow other things to trigger your Golden Age, but I've certainly passed the suggestion on to the development team.


Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

Just FYI in case folks are confused about this:

AFAIK, "We Love the King Day" is still very much alive and has not been replaced by the "Golden Age". WLTKD is city-specific and can happen repeatedly, whereas the Golden Age is an empire-wide bonus that you only get once.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS:
Just FYI in case folks are confused about this:

AFAIK, "We Love the King Day" is still very much alive and has not been replaced by the "Golden Age". WLTKD is city-specific and can happen repeatedly, whereas the Golden Age is an empire-wide bonus that you only get once.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

Yes, but it still in no way relates to the actual state of your nation, but is triggered by combat -- read my lips -- an aggression against another nation, and I'm not THAT trigger-happy. This is sanctifying war, militizing the game, loosing it's spirit (combat is extension of diplomacy therefore a tool) and I find it hard to stand up to. The concept is up on it's head.

Golden Age also provides your nation a BONUS, a boost to trade, science and culture -- for what? An aggression? I simply can't find that civilized. This is barbaric. Let's change the game's name to Barbarians III.

If I'm a good ruler, keep my people happy happy, scientifically go where no one has gone before and a cultural tycoon (Golden Age) I want this period to last as long as I can keep it up, not just 20 turns; and if my nation lives in hovels and defect over "the wall" during an evening walk with the dog, and I tell them "Now you've got the Golden Age, enjoy, 'cause you'll have it no more" -- that's Goebbels propaganda. Thank You.

Golden Age is a beautifull concept (just poorly executed) and should be a vector of We Love The King Day. Besides, I remember the times, when you got a score bonus for extended peace!

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 14, 2001).]

Originally posted by Scrooge:
Yes, but it still in no way relates to the actual state of your nation, but is triggered by combat -- read my lips -- an aggression against another nation, and I'm not THAT trigger-happy.


Does this mean that using a special unit on defense against aggression will not trigger a golden age?

Originally posted by Pembleton:
Does this mean that using a special unit on defense against aggression will not trigger a golden age?

Not at all, since that constitutes a military victory by your special unit against a non-barbarian unit. This is a perfectly valid "Golden Age" trigger.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS:
Not at all, since that constitutes a military victory by your special unit against a non-barbarian unit. This is a perfectly valid "Golden Age" trigger.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

So, now it means, that I have to provoke my neighbor into aggression to trigger Golden Age? Say, a neighbor nation, with which I've been enjoying years and years of happy co-existence? And what if, by some chance, through extended diplomacy, I have no enemies? So that HE attacks me?
Like "make a slight navigation error" with my F-15?
That's still Guns for Butter philosophy. As much as I like the Golden Age Bonus, the concept "as is" simply cannot defend itself.

Originally posted by allan: (Concepts Section)
... The beauty of civ is that you make your own civ, totally undictated by their "counterparts" on far-off earth. Whoever came up with this ridiculous (IMHO) idea of "special civ-specific units" just didn't get that concept, or else limited his own play to the earth map (BOring!).

Please see related thread in #Concepts

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 14, 2001).]

If it bothers you that much Scrooge, then just turn golden ages off. I already mentioned in this thread that I won't even be playing with special units, although I will play with ablities.

Pambleton
Hm... I do not why but I have this feeling that I will play eith special units but no spec abilities - if it is possible - PLEASE!!!
BIG YELLOW SMILE!

Originally posted by Pembleton:
If it bothers you that much Scrooge, then just turn golden ages off. I already mentioned in this thread that I won't even be playing with special units, although I will play with ablities.

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/supersaiyan.gif" border=0> If you turn it off - it's fine by me, but:

1. I like to play with all my options ON
2. I hate games that have logical flaws
3. My style of play is to have max happiness, my nation <u>thrives</u> for a Golden Age
4. This is not some game option (like turn music off) -- Golden Age is a major national event.

So yes, it does bother me, because I hate half-by-products. Games that look good only in paper ads or demos or boxes. With mega PR and publicity just to turn up to be mega flops. Games, which whet my appetite only to disappoint me with something really stupid after the time (and money) that I have to invest in them. And I've seen too many such flawed products lately and felt cheated. Haven't you yourself?

This is not like the aircraft: looks good - flies good; it's like a Civilization III: looks good - plays awesome.

Sid Meyer is a brand. Since the F-15 Strike Eagle eons back in time (POLL > Who remembers it?). I'd like to keep it that way.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 15, 2001).]

This is my own idea of how Golden Age should be executed. I wrote this idea in response to Eric and Allan's post in the Civ 3 ideas/suggestion forum and have copy and pasted it below.

<<
Eric and Allan:
I think both of your ideas are great and they could be combined.

Basically, Eric believes that a civilization's personality is based on what is emphasized at the very birth of that culture. For example, a civilization is militaristic because it tends to create military units since the dawn of its civilization.

Allan however believes that the character of any culture is determined by the geographical location of that culture. Therefore a Mongolian culture situated on an island should not develop powerful horse archer armies, but powerful navies. By the same token, if the British was not situated on an island, but on the steppe, then the British should develop powerful horse archers, not navy.

Perhaps, designers should somehow combine both ideas so that the personality of any given culture is based on both what that culture tends to emphasize and that culture's natural surrounding.

Golden Age is then reached when the personality of the culture is manifested in its action.

For example, I am playing as Chinese, situated on an island. I wish to expand out as soon as possible, so early on the in the game, I tend to emphasize navy. Navy and navigation therefore becomes an integral part of my culture's character.

Chinese Golden Age is reached when I build have a vessel fleet much bigger than the other civilization, when I used my fleet to chart much of the world map and destroy other civilization's ships. Then for the next twenty turns or so, all Chinese ships gets bonus movements.

As another example, I am playing as the Mongolians, situated on a continent full of resources of all kind. Secondly, to the East of me is China, and to the West of me is Roman.

My natural surrounding is advantageous to me because my empire contains plentiful of resources and my empire's position makes it inevitable that all merchants coming from China to Rome must go through me first. Therefore the my natural surrounding compels me to emphasize economic and commerce.

My Mongolian Empire's golden age is reached when my net export is substantially greater than that of other civilizations, and when prosperity level in my empire reaches a high point. For the next twenty turns, I get extra revenues from taxes, and the my resource shields and food production in every tiles are increased by one.

I am basically repeating Eric's idea, but combining some elements from Allan's idea, and elaborating on it a little more.

Do you think this will work? >>


With regard to the issue of historical accuracy, what the designers are trying to do is trying to create an empire building game that adhere to historical accuracy. For example, the Mongolian special units must have powerful horse archers because that's how it is historically.

What we civ fans want is a game where we can direct the fate of our own civilization. What we civ fans want is to be able to lead the civilization onto a path different from what that civilization took historically. So we don't neccesarily want powerful horse archers for Mongolians. We might possibly want powerful navy instead because the geographical location of the Mongolian culture we play might happen to be on an island, not on steppe.

What we want in a game is therefore logical and realistic simulation of events, development and progression(or regression ), not historical accuracy. Remember, logic is the key here, not historical accuracy.

Hmmm... Golden age shouldn`t be a "BONUS" you recieve when you kill another civilisation`s unit with your own unique unit. It is instead a reflection of your ultimate power. I like to think of it as a killing frenzy in unreal tournement. I don`t want a boost in power ( as I should be already powerfull if I start to use my unique units on other civilisation), but i`d prefer that the game informs all other civilisation that ( according to some standarts in economy, exploration, militairy...) I am going through a "golden age" all by myself!

ShadowWarrior, how can I help but agree with you 100%?

I certainly think the starting terrain should be included if possible. With the changes suggested in your post, civ-specific stuff is completely eliminated.

It's too late but...

PLEASE LISTEN FIRAXIS!

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I see where your coming from with this idea but

PLEASE FIRAXIS DONT LISTEN

In your way the strong get stronger: you are looking at Golden ages wrongly - a natural golden age occurs when you are bigger or better than other civs: it always has done, dont confuse this with the golden age the game puts in: this is historically based and I think a very good idea.
But anyhow stop whinging - just turn them off if you dont want them
Your golden ages dfo not give strategy to the game - they take it away wheras firaxis are based on the civ you choose - you may not get a golden age if you are on an island with an early one - but if you do it will be great: picking civs be becomes strategy

-----------------------

Never underestimate the power of stupid people

[This message has been edited by Graeme the mad (edited August 15, 2001).]

Shadow warrior's plan, though not a bad one, takes us back to "cookie-cutter" civs where it makes no difference which you choose--put any two civs in the same starting location with the same playing style and they'll be the same. I like differences between the civs. And the Golden Age trigger isn't as illogical as some people are suggesting...
Rome got its giant empire because it had strong Legions who conquered it. This large empire had lots of trade and production going on. HAD THE LEGIONS NOT BEEN SO GREAT, THIS TRADE AND PRODUCTION WOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. In many real cases, great units aren't built as a result of a Golden Age: trade and production result after strong military carves out an empire or awes the other civs.
In real life, GOLDEN AGES FOLLOW WARS. Allan said
"As for "golden ages", perhaps a period of extended peace and economic growth should trigger that, not a war. People think of "golden ages" as times when people were happy and prosperous, not fighting...."
That's true enough, but almost always they come directly after a war. The roaring Twenties, the Booming Fifties, the Industrial Revolution, the Pax Romana, the Golden Age of Spain, the Height of Athens...all followed succesful wars.

So I don't have a problem with Golden Ages as implemented. It occurs if you're ahead of the curve in science, you've explored a lot, and keep up production. Likely as not you'll be in a war or suffer a sneak attack to trigger one, even if you're peaceful...and if not, and you don't feel like starting a war, then you don't get a Golden Age. Boohoo, live with it. You can still cause WLTK days--get a bunch of those with luxury and peaceful methods and it'll make up for the lack of Golden Age.

[This message has been edited by kundor (edited August 15, 2001).]

WOW!! this is one of the funniest threads ive ever read!
this is what i hear

"i want this this way and dont want to consider that anyone else has a opinion"
and
"i beleive the developers will just leave a major portian of the game untested and instead we should use my idea that i just came up with 2 minutes ago"

that guy that quoted the developers being lasy and idiotic was probably the biggest moron ive ever seen!so very funny!
http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif

i personally think you should all understand that what you (one person) want is not going to effect a disision made by the developers months ago, its been tasted and will work.

any of you that think a late golden age is unfair clearly have not played civ2, in civ 2 the early tachs and units cost less so a early golden age will benifit you just as much as a late one, unless you rule half the earth, wich at that point youve already won and the extra boost will be useful so you dont have to go through tedius city after city but instead can just create a large army quick and end the game.

anyone who beleives what he says now will actually affect civ3 in this stage can come out of there dream world now becouse it aint happening.http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cry.gif

plus there are plenty of people, like me, who like it this way, if you dont want it like this then turn it of becouse you aren't getting another, sorry to burst your wierd little dream world bubble http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif

Tell it how it is http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif



------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

In respose to Graem:
Golden ages as implemented do not occur when a civilization is doing well-- they occur when a civilization supposedly did well in our reality. ShadoWarrior's & my system gives the golden age when a country is strong in its category, say shipbuilding. It does not grant them at the time of the discovery of the prerequisite for the special unit, a time when the empire may be strong or weak.

I WANT COOKIE CUTTER CIVS! The central asian steppe made the Mogolians the Mongolians, not the fact that they looked and spoke mongolian. The Civ3 model says, "The Americans will end up exactly like the Americans and develop advanced fighter planes even if they begin in polynesia in 4000B.C. This is Calvinist predetermination! I want my civ, whatever its name, to have its charachter determined by its surroundings and by my actions!

Kundor, your post makes good sense. I don't agree, but I was almost convinced...

As for "no whining" and "just turn the option off and don't make me listen to you". This is a DISCUSSION. If you would prefer that the discussion be confined to praise of Firaxis's wisdom, you should leave the topic "why golden ages are a bad idea and statrt a new topic called "complacent conformity." Some of us would like to see changes. If you don't like the changes, say so, but don't EVER say that trying to improve the game is blasphemous heresy.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:
... I WANT COOKIE CUTTER CIVS! The central asian steppe made the Mogolians the Mongolians, not the fact that they looked and spoke mongolian. ... This is Calvinist predetermination! ...

... As for "no whining" and "just turn the option off and don't make me listen to you". ... Some of us would like to see changes. If you don't like the changes, say so, but don't EVER say that trying to improve the game is blasphemous heresy.


I WHOLEHEARTEDLY CONCUR http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/beerchug.gif

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland"
- J.Quack Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

Well despite interesting arguments here to the contrary I still feel that the Golden Age idea has been mishandled. True, many golden ages occurred in a period of peace and prosperity after a victorious war. Also true, sometimes the special unit came first in history and its victory in war helped lead to expansion, money, etc.

But in current form the system has nothing to do with winning a war, or the strategic relevance of whatever special unit our civ has been assigned. Instead, golden ages are about winning a single, isolated round of combat. Nothing else is a factor. Consider: because this unit's first victory will always be the trigger we will likely find ourselves in the odd situation of having a "Golden Age" at the beginning of a long war, and ending the Golden Age at just about the time we're overrunning the enemy, sacking the capital, etc.

-"Sneak attack by Zulu forces!"
-"American F-15 wins first combat! World awed by impressive display!"
-"Americans decide to overthrow their Democracy!" (hey, gotta wage a war you know)
(Next turn. Americans still in anarchy. Production, food, trade down; corruption up. Zulu forces landing on coast)
-"Americans celebrate their GOLDEN AGE!" (happy music in background)

Anyway, perhaps this better illustrates my objection. At the moment golden ages sound like some concept tossed into the game just for the sake of having them. They will occur without any real relevance.

The idea would be better if golden ages occurred as a result of:
-being ahead in all (or most) of the leading demographic indicators, or
-conquest of a continent previously shared with another civ,
-first country to attain democracy,
etc. Although one could probably turn up flaws in these approaches as well it's a better direction to start from.

Golden ages are often only recognized as such by historians many years after they've passed. It's difficult to say "we're in our golden age", and practically absurd to say "we're currently in year 1 of our golden age and will have 19 more years of the said golden age". But still it's a game not history and I think could still become a cool feature, really, if they take some time to reconsider the trigger so it better reflects a civ's economic, diplomatic, cultural & military status.

Originally posted by The Splang:
WOW!! this is one of the funniest threads ive ever read!
this is what i hear

"i want this this way and dont want to consider that anyone else has a opinion"
and
"i beleive the developers will just leave a major portian of the game untested and instead we should use my idea that i just came up with 2 minutes ago"

that guy that quoted the developers being lasy and idiotic was probably the biggest moron ive ever seen!so very funny!
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif" border=0>

i personally think you should all understand that what you (one person) want is not going to effect a disision made by the developers months ago, its been tasted and will work.

any of you that think a late golden age is unfair clearly have not played civ2, in civ 2 the early tachs and units cost less so a early golden age will benifit you just as much as a late one, unless you rule half the earth, wich at that point youve already won and the extra boost will be useful so you dont have to go through tedius city after city but instead can just create a large army quick and end the game.

anyone who beleives what he says now will actually affect civ3 in this stage can come out of there dream world now becouse it aint happening.<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cry.gif" border=0>

plus there are plenty of people, like me, who like it this way, if you dont want it like this then turn it of becouse you aren't getting another, sorry to burst your wierd little dream world bubble <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif" border=0>



Well...I guess I should say thank you for bringing some of us back to the reality.

But do realize that this is a forum for general suggestion, meaning that everything we discuss here are valid as long as they relate to Civ3. Yes, some people like you do like the Golden Age as the designers have implemented. But there are just as many other people out there who dislike it.

So while you have done us the favor of reminding us that what we suggests might never make a difference to the final release of the game, I will also return the favor and remind you that all we are doing is making suggestions and discussing what we like and dislike about this game. After all, isn't this what this forum is for??

Heffalump you said

'The idea would be better if golden ages occurred as a result of:
-being ahead in all (or most) of the leading demographic indicators, or
-conquest of a continent previously shared with another civ,
-first country to attain democracy,
etc. Although one could probably turn up flaws in these approaches as well it's a better direction to start from.'

You are misinerpreting the idea of golden ages - as ive said before what you have when you are far ahead is a natural golden age - you should not be given any rewards for being ahead except for the reward of being ahead.
Game induced golden ages make interesting strategty in which civilisation you choose - a lot better than the same civs as in civ2 - if u wanted to link golden ages to being ahead the strong just get stronger: a golden age in the game is really and intersting part of strategic gameplay: maybe calling them golden ages was the wrong idea, but I can see why they were called golden ages because they fit historically with the civ and they give the civ an advantage.



------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

Graeme, your point is interesting.

You say if a civ is doing well, it doesn't need a golden age. In fact, when a civ is doing well, it is EXPERIECING a golden age, whether the game says so or not. You could throw in another golden age to make the civs conform to earth, but this is missing the point of history.

I always say 'cookie cutter' approaches are more accurate than civ-specific ones. A civ specific approach assumes everything up to that point has gone nearly the same as it did on earth. However, the reason Britain's Men of War are more successful then Spain's is the battle of the Armada (allowing the British to develop a fleet); they are better than those of France beacause of the victory at Trafalgar. If these battles had gone differently, the British Man of War would be as likely to be included in the game as the German Musketier.

The illusion of history provided by civ specific units or time periods for golden ages is based on the idea that a group of short Italians called the Latins would become the Roman Empire even if located on Mars. A simulation should only produce our version of history if everything is played just as it happened in History. Otherwise,it should come up with a radically different outcome, like Babylonian Legions or Chinese F15s.

As for the complaint that a golden age event occurring during a time of prosperity making the strong stronger... you are correct. This probably indicates that golden ages are a bad idea and should not be represented except by prosperity which occurs in the course of a regular game. I prefer golden age benefits rewarding successful civilization management: this would encourage people to keep their civs strong in all dimensions rather than just military or science.

I apologize for always saying the same thing in different ways.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

Originally posted by ShadowWarrior:
Well...I guess I should say thank you for bringing some of us back to the reality.

But do realize that this is a forum for general suggestion, meaning that everything we discuss here are valid as long as they relate to Civ3. Yes, some people like you do like the Golden Age as the designers have implemented. But there are just as many other people out there who dislike it.

So while you have done us the favor of reminding us that what we suggests might never make a difference to the final release of the game, I will also return the favor and remind you that all we are doing is making suggestions and discussing what we like and dislike about this game. After all, isn't this what this forum is for??



im just saying that, as you said, if it was changed some people would be angry, im also just reminding you that its to late, but it still is fun to speculate.

PLEASE excuse me for repeating myself, but since now there are two different threads (this one and in #Suggestions) I feel I have to.

----------
I'm sorry, but I just can't think of any other justification for a Golden Age than people's happiness. Golden Age should happen spontaneously, triggered by high nation's ratings in most key fields of the game (military, commerce, culture, science, happiness etc. - but not just people count!), and not be player-dependant (e.g. I say I choose to have my Golden Age NOW). Golden Age should have no time limits (e.g. last so so many trns) but continue as long as trigger criteria (not easy) are met. Also, there should be no limits as to Golden Age counts (like 1 or 7 per game). Prolonged Golden Ages should be sub-goal of the whole game. Civilian population of a militant nation have to be kept happy as much as of non-militant (or probably more).

The special units have an easy solution. As I've said before, need breeds invention. So IMO just building (say, 30%) more units of one kind than any other nation makes them user-upgradable to special. This solves the "Mongols on an island" problem and leaves the player a lot of options. Just build what you think is appropriate and read on. Now, with the new "no initial rush" rules it won't be all that easy to have a spec unit fast. Also, this way you can have many types of special units unique to your nation and not only in one time frame. I mean, in the game, you don't have to be ROMANS to have LEGIONS (and a +1 special legion like the Hoplites)

Example - when you build (say, 30%) more triremes than any other nation (because you're on an island, need tritremes and doing well), this unit becomes special, you get a window with the notice ("You have just created a new special unit"), and you can improve one stat of your choice like range, building cost, attack, defense, speed, morale, and name the unit to your liking like, Quatrieme. (would be nice with special unit spies called MI6 - increased chance of success). From this point, all successive triremes built by this nation would be Quatriemes (gamewise still triremes, but +1 triremes). Thus I would disconnect military super-units with the concept of Golden Age and let the two live a separate lives.

As for civ-specific modifiers the best I've seen are in SMAC. I wish Firaxis will adapt SMAC concept to Civilization, because it was BRILLIANT.

----------
The WLTKD as Dan said is a City-wide event, gives just +1 coin. Golden Age of my model is a Nation-wide event, would make all cities do something more - like generate more Science and a lot of this new culture thing (VERY IMPORTANT). As you've probably noticed, borders are culture-dependent , so per chance, during a Golden Age your nation given time could assimilate some less golden nearby cities (the new rules).

This is a cultural alternative to military conquest we've been waiting for so long!
Please explore the possibilities.

Again the Golden Age trigger should not be easy to meet like keeping 75% of your cities in a WLTKD for a 5+random(5) trns on King +-5% per lvl of game difficulty.

As for the spec units, you'd have a chance to edit them yourself to some extent, furthering your appropriate specialization (thus special units, what it's all about). I, myself would love to have a spec "Pink Panther" squad, like an engineer on double-time.

Please tell me if I'm not making sense (and why).

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland"
- J.Quack Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 16, 2001).]

The Splang makes a valid point. Firaxis could only make minor adjustments (if any) at this stage, so if we are aiming at affecting the game, we need to be realistic.
Generally I like the idea of Golden Ages in Civ III better than the version in Civ II (which was so powerful it dominated all strategic thinking), and I like the idea of giving each Civilization unique advantages.
One small (and hopefully still possible) change that would be worth making would be to change the trigger for a Golden Age so that it does not require a war. (Simplest way would be to include attacks on barbarians.) This would allow us builders to use the Golden Ages as easily as warmongers.

Originally posted by ERIKtheRED:
In fact, when a civ is doing well, it is EXPERIECING a golden age, whether the game says so or not. You could throw in another golden age to make the civs conform to earth, but this is missing the point of history.


Absolutely right. After reading these 3 pages at one go, I have to say that I for one am on the No Golden Age camp. It seems to me to be a concept thrust upon the game as an attempt to validate the civ-specific units (which I also think are a bad idea).

But for the sake of compromise, I can see Golden Ages and Civ-Specific Units working as outlined below:

For both these ideas to be implemented realistically, they would have to be triggered by factors particular to each game, period. Golden ages should never be so predictable as a pre-programmed action we're all aware of from the beginning. Or by the knowledge that they last 20 turns, and only come once.

Golden Ages should rather be triggered by an event or a certain set of conditions which the player can guess at but is not completely aware of from the beginning.

For instance, as someone mentioned about the strong-navy Mongols above: A golden age in this case could be triggered by, say, the building of the 20th sea unit. Or by the 5th consecutive victory at sea. This in turn would trigger the ability to build the civ-specific unit--which due to the events of this particular game, could be super-marines, super-subs, super-frigates, whatever. (The civ-specific unit would also depend on the current historical age, of course--a Golden Age in 1000BC should never lead to super-tanks obviously.)

THe player in this case might guess that, since he started out on an island, the quickest path to his golden age depends on a navy, but he wouldn't necessarily know the specific trigger. It could be researching a certain marine tech, or it could be exploring a certain number of sea-tiles, or any other variable that would be relevant. In fact, he might go through the whole game without experiencing his golden age--and hey, tough! THat's one reason why certain early historical civs got assimilated into 'shinier' ones is it not?

Golden Ages should not last a set number of turns either, but continue as long as certain criteria are met (these criteria could be set up to be harder and harder to achieve, such as trade doubling exponentially). In the case above, they could last until, for instance, land units outnumber sea units 3:1.

PS: And as an afterthought upon re-reading: It would be logical that ALL golden age triggers are available to ALL civs--so that Our Mongols above could still develop their super-horsemen if they concentrated on settling a plain-rich landmass rather than on building a navy. Or if they triggered it economically through trade.

But to summarize, I suggest that civ-specific units should be triggered by golden ages rather than the other way around, and that historically-specific concepts should be done away altogether.

Originally posted by Pembleton:
If it bothers you that much Scrooge, then just turn golden ages off. I already mentioned in this thread that I won't even be playing with special units, although I will play with ablities.


But I want my Golden Ages. They are a great idea! Someone said earlier that if you have earned a Golden Age, you are effectively IN one. Yeah, all except for the extra square resources you get, I guess that's true. Oh Brother!
Being Effectively in a Golden Age is not the same as Actually being in one. It's such a cool idea, it's sad to waste it on only those who will only play the Civ specific route. I'll probably always play the Cookie-cutter route just because I'm always fascinated by the possibilities. Man I hope that with later patches they give us Cookie-cutter players a shot at some Golden Ages.



[This message has been edited by Flak (edited August 16, 2001).]

Man, I think this whole thread is pretty harsh. Here Firaxis is, trying to make a game that stretches the bounds of strategy gaming, and all these people are saying how they just ruined the game. Have you even played it yet? No! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/mad.gif

You can turn these new features off if you don't like them. So what's the big deal? Heck they aren't going to put a gun to your head and make you buy the game. If your so old fashioned, just play Civ2 for the rest of your life.

I think Firaxis has done a great job from what I've seen. Of course, I haven't played it yet either, but let's not jump to conclusions about how it's gonna suck because they added this BLAH BLAH BLAH. How would you feel if you spent the past year working on a game, and then you released some info on what the game is going to be like and everyone just started complaining and saying how your game is no good because BLAH BLAH BLAH. All this criticism is making me want to http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cwm8.gif

If you can't say nothing good, don't say nothing at all. Remember, you haven't even played it yet. I'm sure you'll be drooling once you have.

I really resent that. We are not advocating that civ 3 should be like civ 2-- I thin city radiuses should be abolished. I also think golden ages can be included so they work- see my topic in S&I.

Now I will repeat myself, as it clearly didn't reach you the first time.

As for "no whining" and "just turn the option off and don't make me listen to you". This is a DISCUSSION. If you would prefer that the discussion be confined to praise of Firaxis's wisdom, you should leave the topic "why golden ages are a bad idea and statrt a new topic called "complacent conformity." Some of us would like to see changes. If you don't like the changes, say so, but don't EVER say that trying to improve the game is blasphemous heresy.



------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

<FONT COLOR="blue">
Cool it guys.

Napoleon, make sure you stay on topic in future. All posters need to do this in two ways:
* stay explicitly Civ3 related, and
* stay related to the topic title and the opening post.
You are of course welcome to start a new topic if your post would not comply with the second of those two rules.

Erik, stay cool. I appreciate your frustration but let the mods do their job.
</FONT c>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.anglo-saxon.demon.co.uk/stormerne/stormerne.gif" border=0>

Originally posted by: Sargon
Generally I like the idea of Golden Ages in Civ III better than the version in Civ II (which was so powerful it dominated all strategic thinking), and I like the idea of giving each Civilization unique advantages.

AFAIK there was no GA in CivII, there was the WLTK day, so there's no comparison; "economic behavior is also strategic behavior" (-CEO M.K.Morgan). The beauty of Civ games was that you had to adapt your thinking strategy to the circumstances; sometimes you attack, sometimes negotiate, sometimes roll over and play dead (and mobilize); as I’ve said, there are many ways to skin the cat (and win the game). When you strip down the game – you get 2 aspects:

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/nya2.gif" border=0> Internal affaires – wealth, health and good spirit
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/nya2.gif" border=0> External affaires – diplomacy (treaties, trade, espionage and war as tools of diplomacy).

Civilization is not a military strat sim, it is a game of DIPLOMACY.
That made the game so unique and popular. I am very grieved to see it turn into another military sim.

This is why, IMhO, well never mind, please see my previous post.

Originally posted by: EriktheRed
You say if a civ is doing well, it doesn't need a golden age. In fact, when a civ is doing well, it is EXPERIECING a golden age, whether the game says so or not. You could throw in another golden age to make the civs conform to earth, but this is missing the point of history.
Sideline> Murphy’s Law of Random Distribution: Them that have, get. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/eek.gif" border=0>

I think I see the point of what Firaxis is really trying to do. They want to make nationalities characteristic, thus present new gaming possibilities, and for the sake of game balance, give players a nation-specific tool to offset some adverse conditions, which may occur during the course of the game. This can be executed by tweaking other in-game parameters or by some other element – the name Golden Age is simply very misleading. This player-induced boost is better exemplified by something like the communist 5-yer plan (tremendous “shield” boost). But it’s way different from the Golden Age.
So please, Firaxis, don't mess it up.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland"
- J.Quack Kennedy</FONT s></FONT f>

PS. Good work, Stormerne

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 17, 2001).]

I agree with Stormerne, let the mods do their job. I think that with the level of customization being built into this game that we will all be able to get the game we want out of this. I think one of the most interesting developments involving CIVIII will be to see if a particular mod version becomes more popular (including being incorporated into multiplayer games) than the original. If your idea is valid, you will probably get to see the CivIII of your dreams.

Napoleon H. : Stormerne's right, I should cool it. I wouldn't have been so mad if there hadn't been so many other people before you...

Master of Ceremonies: I think Stromerne meant modERATORS (i.e. the moderators were supposed to control angry people). I would be very pleased if modPACKS could solve my problem. However, modpacks rarely have tools to edit the game on the level I'm looking for: no preset civ specific abilities until 3000 BC, when civs are assigned any number based on their play style in the first thousand years will never be possible unless I can do programming far beyond Rules.txt. It is equally unlikely that the trigger for golden ages will be changable. I am confident that the civ specific stuff will not destroy the game, and I'm not even sure it won't add play value. I am sure that one of several systems proposed would work better, and we will not be able to see these systems implemented. So golden ages are badly done because they are disliked by some and could have been done better.

Scrooge: the five year plan idea is really what this is. Its not an indication that your empire is doing well- Its an indication your nation is a certain point in science. It is a user decision: do I want to use my unit to get better when I'm doing well, or keep it out of combat until I'm in dire straits and really need the golden age. Firaxis limited the ability, though. It could have been a one time user triggered event. They implemented it so it can only come in a certain part of the game, and you have to sacrifice the use of your special unit to determine exactly when it should occur

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

originally posted by ERIKtheRED:
Scrooge: the five year plan idea is really what this is. ... It is a user decision ...

You said it. I think that it's the actual NAMING of this $#@! event that's causing so much stir. Firaxis has a good cause, to expand gameplay, but is a little bit clueless of how to make it work. A 5-year plan? A Golden Age? <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/crazyeyes.gif" border=0>

Historically valid GA and SU work fine in real-world-like scenarios, but not in an open Civ game on random map. Civ is <u>based</u> on RW history, sure, but is not a history lesson. I'd like to see the final implementation of both of the above concepts as open options {please re-read my earlier posts}. The nation I play most often is called Duckland, AFAIK, historically, they have a GA all the time and their SU is the aforementioned Pink Panther Engineer Sqad.

You should see some of the ideas folks at Apolyton (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24134) have... Grreat fun, great fun indeed...

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland"
- J.Quack Kennedy</FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 17, 2001).]

I think the point of the unique units was that Firaxis wanted to create a different mood for different civilisation and to distinguish one civ from the others... but this could have been done by creating different graphics of the same unit for different civilisation. ex.: Lets take the old Fighters(aircraft). This unit has specific statistics BUT for the germans it would be called a Messerchmit with its according graphics while the British fighters would look like the R.A.F.'old stylish Spitfires... ALL OF THEM having the SAME STATS. This would lesser the cookie-cutter mold effect while not touching the delicate balance of the game.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/psycho-eyes.gif Although this would mean 16 civilisation x 60 units = 960 different animations! Thats a lot o' work... http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/psycho-eyes.gif

This would make the golden ages having no sense at all! All units could trigger a golden age? http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/lol.gif There for, I think my point suggest and/or proves that the current trigger style of a golden age is not fitting here. Well I hope my suggestion isn't stupid...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/snipersmilie.gif Flamers

Originally posted by Blabendishen:
I think the point of the unique units was that Firaxis wanted to create a different mood for different civilisation and to distinguish one civ from the others...

Nation uniquness, they can do it the SMAC way, and release national editor (like in SMAC).

The anims don't have to be the same - special units could be shown with a different "health flag" (Im still refering to the need-breed quantity model I've described above (http://forums.civfanatics.com/Forum5/HTML/000273-3.html) )

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland"
- J.Quack Kennedy</FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 17, 2001).]

Sorry about my earlier post, I was tired when I wrote it. That means I was also probably a bit edgy and shouldn't have been posting. After I posted it and then read it, I thought WOE! Did I say that? It was a bit harsh. Maybe that was the spirit of Hitler shining through my words.

Anyways, I like the way that Firaxis has implemented the Golden Ages because I think it adds a lot of fun to the game. While for realism's sake, some of you have better ideas of how to implement it, Civ3 is just a game. I for one, don't really like it when a game resembles the real world too much. I kind of play games to get away from the real world and get into my own. Some people read books for the same reason I play games.

Besides, an Iriquois F-15, come on, give me a break. The only reason they even had guns is because of Europeans. If the Mongols have the Man-of-War, then the Iriquois could have the F-15, and that is just not realistic. That's another problem I have with some of the proposals y'all have made.

I think the UU of civs as Firaxis has so far done them is good, but the triggering of the GA is not well-thought out, BUT with two changes could be fixed (IMO): the GA should simply be triggered as soon as you build your SU, and the age should last until your unit becomes obsolete by your researching another tech- meaning that there should be a very tempting technology with a unit that replaces your SU to draw you forward in technology, but OTOH economic advantages of your Golden Age tempt you to stifle technology.

This might be tougher for the Americans and Russians than other Civs, but not an impossible solution.

As to the Babs and Egyptians having the same unit- do they cost the same resources? Are the both considered "ranged" units that can retreat in battle easily (was this even built in I don't know)- the archer might cost less but have more trouble surviving if it loses, while the chariot may cost more and have a greater shock value in combat- also the resources needed to build them must different- one involves horse the other does not.

I'll try to convey here what I already said at Apolyton:

An early golden age gives an advantage to that civ over "late golden age civs". Why? Because of ICS. As you may already know, ICS is a very solid, game-winning technique that relies on two rules: build many cities and BUILD EARLY. I realize the game designers are trying to reduce ICS but that early boost in production will, nevertheless, allow the civ to build more cities quickly in the early parts of the game . . . a big advantage!

Another $.02 ... I have to disagree with this whole idea of civ being a historical simulation. What I mean is ... I'm glad people can and do use it for that, but I just don't see the fun in repeating what's already been done. I do enjoy the historical scenarios, but from a "main game" standpoint ... I'm glad I can create my own civ from "scratch" and write my own history without the help of text books. Realistic ... hooray! Realistically historic ... boo!

Agreed.

I think its important to distinguish historically replicating from historically accurate. Many people have said that a 2000BC Babylonian golden age is historical, making it good. They then accuse me (a naysayer) of being conservative because I do not agree that history should be any less abstract than in civ 2.

I will simplify this (perhaps causing an oversight). Because golden ages are linked to units which are linked to techs which occur at roughly the same time in any players game, I think it can be said that golden ages are linked to dates.

A 2000BC golden age merely replicates history. It is something like American high school instruction: know the date, know the country, forget the cause. In a true historical simulation, a golden age should be triggered by previous events in the course of history. If the circumstances are similar to those that occured in reality 4000 years ago, then there should be a golden age. If circumstances are not in Babylon's favor, a golden age simply would not occur. If you can do nothing more than remember a timeline, the current system will seem very historical to you. If you see that a golden age is not caused by a date but by the course of empires and societies, you will see that a more considered system would be more historically accurate. And if you don't care about historical accuracy, play civ 2, or better yet, backgammon.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I haven't got time to read all through this thread so I risk repeating things. Sorry!

Golden age and civ specific units are gimmicks (which is why they can be turned off - although really they ought to be off by default) and they are not in the spirit of the game concept. There is nothing wrong with such things in scenarios because scenarios are not about the game they are different ways of using the engine.

If you keep to the spirit of the game you can start with a variety of civ "personalities" and with some variation in startup technologies, but most everything else must be dictated by the environment and by what you choose to do (such as research, road-building, etc).

Despite the way these civ-specifics are linked to historical situations they are essentially artificial and detrimental to the game.

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

Originally posted by Chronus:
I'm glad I can create my own civ from "scratch" and write my own history without the help of text books. Realistic ... hooray! Realistically historic ... boo!

I think this sums it up as well as Erik and Algernon and various others have said above. In fact it answers the question-title of this thread.

This is why some of us seem to be pre-emptively booing Firaxis' efforts. Firaxis seems to realize the flaws inherent in this system too, which is why they are making it an option.

However, special units and golden ages aren't necessarily bad. I would have preferred to wait a few more months for something more well-thought out than this 'first-attack' triggering system though. Oh well, as things stand, it's really a non-issue for me: I will turn the option off and continue to wish for a truly customizable--and thus'realistic' civilization-building game.

Looks like that sometimes we are loosing the basics: Civ series are a historical based games, but that does not means that we need to repeat the history. That would be toooooo bored and no one wants that.
Golden Ages are an historical fact: Rome had its one, Egypt too, the Celts also, Arabs and Greeks and Spanish and Russians... All of them triggered by certain reasons (military, cultural, economical). The only thing that the designers must do is to decide which reasons can trigger a Golden Age, independently what triggered it to that civilization in that period. Why not a Egyptian Golden Age in the 16th century A.C.? Or a Russian one in the 10th BC?

Seems to me, the more people liked civ2, the more they will be resistant to all the civ-specific changes in civ3. I, for one, and very excited at the changes forthcoming, but then again, I am a rather progressive bloke anyway.

Originally posted by Magnus:
Seems to me, the more people liked civ2, the more they will be resistant to all the civ-specific changes in civ3. I, for one, and very excited at the changes forthcoming, but then again, I am a rather progressive bloke anyway.

Progressive? It sounds too me like they tried there hardest to rebuild todays world as best as they could. Where's the fun in playing a repeat of history over and over and over...? Please explain to me how this is progressive.

Golden Ages are a wonderful concept. Civ specific units are the selling point of many Mods. I think Firaxis took an outside look at what's happened with CivII and concluded "What people like is a repeat of history". What they should have concluded is "What people like is a realistic 'what could have been.'" They went with the wrong concept, arguably to the detriment of game. The only saving point is we can turn these features off. But even that has the implicit negative that now those of us who build up magnificent Civs don't get Golden Ages. I mean we're gonna pay for Golden Ages (as much as $70), so why don't we get to have them?

An example of how it should be: A civ that has ten cities circa 1500 AD. They are the happiest civ with the most developed 'culture'. They are far ahead of everyone else technologically. There are several other Civs of 40+ cities around which fight little, sometimes big, wars with each other. But this civ has been at peace for centuries. And then, a miraculous invention or ingenious concept comes along and they hit their Golden Age....

It doesn't have to be some warmongering Civ that has swallowed up 90% of the world by 1AD. Heck, in some cases the civ could be a single city! (Look at our history. It HAS happened!)

The way this is implemented now, you have to be more of a warmongering type. If your not already in a fight, you'd better go out and pick one. And even that has not been implemented well in my opinion. I mean, what if you fall behind technology-wise or you (for whatever reason, say geography) wait to long to fight and everyone else has caught up in tech? What good is your Roman legion or Egytian chariot going to be against musketeers, rifleman, mech infantry? Further, what if the only Civ(s) near you are powerful long-standing Allies that you actually like?

If your planning on playing for a Diplomatic/Cultural victory, you'll likely never see a Golden Age, even if you 'win'.


[This message has been edited by Flak (edited August 21, 2001).]

by Aristonico:

Golden Ages are an historical fact

Oh the things we can do with words!
"Golden Ages" are subjective judgements applied with hindsight by commentators, politicians and historians.

But, okay, lets put that aside. Can anyone cite me evidence that at some time a society/community was experiencing a particularly successful period and then suddenly found it was rewarded by free bonuses (like manna from heaven)? No! all benefits derived from what they had and what they did and how their neighbours reacted to them.

If anyone thinks that sticking to known characteristics of societies in history leads a game to slavishly copying the events of the past then they do not understand the past in the slightest ("in not more than 1500 words discuss the role of chance in history" - a typical historiography question from when I was an undygrundy).

The only logical use of the concept in game terms is to define some parameters that would constitute a Golden Age (but make them difficult so that most games it would not happen) and to award a points bonus for achieving it in any era.

by Magnus

Seems to me, the more people liked civ2, the more they will be resistant to all the civ-specific changes in civ3.

Wait a minute! Are you saying you are not so keen on civ2? I don't believe that!

As far as I am concerned the difference is between those who actually want a game about the nature of civilization and those who just want a storming good game. At the risk of someone recognizing a certain repetition from me, if civ3 veers off towards merely a storming good game then civ2 and the original civ will remain the only games available to the former camp. This would be sad because there is much more can be done with the concept.

If we are really lucky, all the toy elements will be optional and then we will have a two in one package: a new civilization game for those who care and a storming good game for lighter moments.

Civ-specific characteristics that allow exclusive features (positive or negative) suggest inherent abilities or disabilities in one population compared with another and that suggests a species level boundary. That the Romans for a time had military domination lies less (and not atall uniquely) in their genes and more in their history and environment etc.

How I wish Sid had bitten the bullet and established non-historical tribal names so that so many people would not have failed to understand what the game is really about. (20/20 hindsight)

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

Hi

In my opinion i find the ideas for a golden age presented in this forum are excellent. I do believe that a Golden Age should be triggerd by social and economical situation, and not by a random act of violence.

I also like the generic Civilizations, and i'm not thrilled at all by the specific units. I just hope that firaxis will be so kind to give us nice editor and tools to make it more like it.

Anyway thanks to all who has contributed to this thread. I found it very interesting, and i hope the people at Firaxis are reading to all this great ideas.

Originally posted by History_Buff:
... Rome became powerful because of its Legions.
Babylon survived because it developed its Bowmen. ...


OK History Buff, I'm just a dumb duck. quack.

Please explain to me, why didn't the Babylonians develop Legions and Romans their Bowmen?

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2"><FONT COLOR="green">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland".</FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/icons/icon22.gif" border=0>
-- J.Quack Kennedy</FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 21, 2001).]

Are you kidding, Algernon Pondlife? I love Civ2!!! I am just one to blindly embrace Civ3 - I have faith in Sid and that's that.

And civ-specific stuff is WONDERFUL!!! how can you play 'the Romans' without cool Roman cultural stuff? Cookie-cutter civs can get boring after a while, civs that actually reflect their names are exciting - in my humble opinion, of course http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif

Thank you Magnus. You make my point.

Scrooge: because that is the way it happened; had circumstances been different then it could have been another way.

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

The unique units are made for historical purposes. That's why you can turn them off. And a lot of early tribe's golden ages depended on their unique units. Rome became powerful because of its Legions. Babylon survived because it developed its Bowmen. There are exceptions, such as the Americans. But for the most part, the units were the things that helped create the military side of the golden age.

And again with the historical part. Romans developed well because they employed the Legions correctly. When the units became obsolete around 400 AD, what happened?

GOODBYE WEST ROMANS

However, special units and golden ages aren't necessarily bad.


I agree. In fact, I am looking forward to them . . . just as long as I have my option to play without them as well.

There now, see? We can enjoy the best of both worlds http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/love2.gif

Golden ages and special units are not a bad thing in themselves, IMO, but I wish they weren't tied to Civ names. Wonders are cool, but they wouldn't be nearly as cool if only the Egyptians could build the pyramids, the Americans (or French? http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif) could build the Statue of Liberty, the English (Scots) Adam Smiths' College, etc.

Special units should be only available to the first civ to discover the relevant technology, the golden age should take effect for civs which achieve some set of parameters - the old WLT?D was fine for me, but it could be made more complex by adding factors other than happiness.

I suspect I will be disabling these for most of my games.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
Can anyone cite me evidence that at some time a society/community was experiencing a particularly successful period and then suddenly found it was rewarded by free bonuses (like manna from heaven)? No! all benefits derived from what they had and what they did and how their neighbours reacted to them.


Well, no. But the whole point of the Golden Age is that it reflects the success of the civ. You get all of the bonus shields and trade because the people are filled with nationalistic pride (ugh) and are working their socks off in the fields and mines and stuff. The trigger is a bit pointless, but you can imagine that such an effect might be caused if the armies of a civ had crushed their threatening neighbours and secured more territory and (perhaps more importantly) peace.

I think that the Golden Age idea is a good one, though the trigger has been set so that the civs stick more or less to their historical counterparts with the timing of the Ages. But Britain had a Golden Age that lasted from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to Queen Victoria and encompassed musketeers, men o' war and artillery - quite a lot longer than however many turns it is in the game. Still, historical accuracy will make the gameplay secondary and you should not strive for it. If nothing can sate your all-consuming desire for historical realism, then you can always play a scenario.

Hmm, I've just realised that although I was addressing Mr Pondlife up to the word peace, it does read as if the whole thing is too. Oops. Thereafter, take a more general you and embrace the brother(and sister-)hood of man! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/pimp.gif


------------------
in vino veritas

An early Golden Age will turn out to be the best for civ3. War will become a harder strategy. A cultural victory will lead to glory. So peace is the way.
The best strategy to me seems this:
build some cities over bigger distances in a circle around your capital.
connect them with the capital.
have an Golden Age as early as possible.
use the extra´s for production of culture-producing buildings/wonders.
make peace asap after starting your Golden Age.
build ambassies afterwards and give away some presents to help your reputation restore.
then build more cities within the circle of older cities.
when the improved AI needs to start a war later in the game for their Golden Age you can either prevent this to happen or use it to get better results at the bargaining table.

I can´t wait to try this...
http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/pimp.gif

Originally posted by WarandPeace:
Hmmm, I like to see any of those Civs you've mentioned still alive to build factories when their miserable villages 2000 years ago were encircled by armies of unique archers and wild phalanxes.

Plus what game will there be left for the Babylonians when they are already smaller than their antagonists in the late game, not to mention when Panzer tanks are installed?

Like I said before, use your benefits against the ones who has none. If you can assume Panzer tanks could kill me (Babylonians)in the late game. Then I will assume my archers can rape your civ before they can walk.
Take their cities before culture and nationalities disadvantages kick in. And hog as much land and resource as possible. There will be left for a big WW, not to mention threats of modern devices working against me.

i just wish the Golden Age was started by the availability of the special unit.
Wander why Sid+ decided otherwise...

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
Oh the things we can do with words!
"Golden Ages" are subjective judgements applied with hindsight by commentators, politicians and historians.

But, okay, lets put that aside. Can anyone cite me evidence that at some time a society/community was experiencing a particularly successful period and then suddenly found it was rewarded by free bonuses (like manna from heaven)? No! all benefits derived from what they had and what they did and how their neighbours reacted to them.



Oh my Godness, a freudian slip... you know, historians sometimes suffered it as I do http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif Yes, absolute subjective, I agree... But how can you explain the fast evolution of Rome, the conquest of a great Empire by Alexander or the empire-making of Great Britain or Spain? If the golden age in CivIII can reflect this kind of "events" welcome. If it is only to try to "reproduce historical facts" I can save 70$...
Well, not mana (out of Moses of course) but prestige has always been a great fact in International Affairs. The Spanish Tercios were the best units in Europe for more than 100 years, Napoleon (conscription) and Alexander (phalanx) won against odds, Caesar (legions) was not "left-handed" in dealing with the Galians...

[This message has been edited by Aristonico (edited August 22, 2001).]

Originally posted by History_Buff:
And a lot of early tribe's golden ages depended on their unique units. Rome became powerful because of its Legions. Babylon survived because it developed its Bowmen. There are exceptions, such as the Americans. But for the most part, the units were the things that helped create the military side of the golden age.

And again with the historical part. Romans developed well because they employed the Legions correctly. When the units became obsolete around 400 AD, what happened?

GOODBYE WEST ROMANS

Maybe early empires, but the only example I can think of is the Greek Phalanx, which allowed them to conquer all before them, until the Roman legion made it obsolete. If you really think the fall of the Western Roman Empire was due to the legion becoming obsolete, then you aren't much of a history buff. It was more due to the fact that no romans were willing to join the legions, so they had to use the barbarian races as mercenaries. Certainly, future golden ages have not been triggered by war (do Firaxis (a French comapny) really think that Germany's golden age was the time when Hitler's panzers were the dominant military unit?), though war has often been necessary for the rising nation to defend its interests against neighbours seeking to do it down (so the tendency of AI civs to gangn up on the human player is not entirely unhistorical http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif )

I actually think the Golden Age concept is a good one, but at the moment it relies too much on history - as a lot of people have said this is not what I play Civ for (though I am generally glad that it is going to make a difference what civ you play now). Basically I think the name is wrong - not least because Golden Ages can only be indentified in the decadent period after it, and in the game they are more likely to lay the foundsations for a period of even greater glory. Maybe they should be called Foundation Periods ro something like that?

??????????
forget the relation between Golden Ages and special units!!!!
The idea of Golden Ages is beautiful. And *something* is needed to trigger it! If you ask me, it really doesn´t matter what that *something* is. I just like the idea and will most certainly enjoy the openings this gives to strategic playing.
However, the war-declaring part is something to overcome.

... though war has often been necessary for the rising nation to defend its interests against neighbours seeking to do it down (so the tendency of AI civs to gangn up on the human player is not entirely unhistorical <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> )

I actually think the Golden Age concept is a good one, but at the moment it relies too much on history - as a lot of people have said this is not what I play Civ for (though I am generally glad that it is going to make a difference what civ you play now). Basically I think the name is wrong - not least because Golden Ages can only be indentified in the decadent period after it, and in the game they are more likely to lay the foundsations for a period of even greater glory. Maybe they should be called Foundation Periods ro something like that?[/B]

Golden Ages/Dark Ages
Why not the opposite also? That would bring us to a new system of "evolution" in our Civs. One shield is one shield in a normal period, but in a "dark one" would be a % of it, in a golden age something plus... I don't know... May by just another crazy idea based on the lack of cafeine http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif

The idea is as facinating as Golden Ages. I think it´s even more difficult to implement though. When would a dark period start? right after a golden period?
this could balance the game again, but it would definitely spoil my fun!

The basic problem is in the definition of Golde/Dark Ages-Eras... As any collegue posted before, are really subjective.
I don't like the idea of start a Golden Era because my special unit goes in battle and wins. I find it absolutly nonsensical...
About the beguinning of a Dark Age... What about loosing a certain amount of units, or cities... Or have no new techs for a certain period...

Thát period would be dark enough, don´t you agree?
I really don´t need an extra punishment in such a period... http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/plasmawhore.gif

Originally posted by Aristonico:
The basic problem is in the definition of Golde/Dark Ages-Eras... As any collegue posted before, are really subjective.
I don't like the idea of start a Golden Era because my special unit goes in battle and wins. I find it absolutly nonsensical...
About the beguinning of a Dark Age... What about loosing a certain amount of units, or cities... Or have no new techs for a certain period...

Well, it is just question of dedicate yourself more to "productive stuff" than to "destructive" one... If your civ is in recession, then a Dark Age can start... What is going to trigger it? This is an open discussion !!!!! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif

If Golden Ages are subjective, why can't the devs have their own opinions on how they are triggered?

In the game, GA only occurs once and lasts only twenty turns. A complete game can last 400-500 turns (going by the Civ2 table.) It can have a profound effect on the outcome of the game, but it mostly depends on how we take advantage of it. This is in correlation to which tribe we choose, which is akin to SMAC, where we chose a faction and capitalize on its strengths to cover its weaknesses.

We should not look too deep for any real-world historical similarities. Civ is a strategy game first and foremost. It is also a customizable game, so GA's could be turned off. Also, I think all the new features can be turned off, such as the categorization of each civ into military, commercial, and other factors. So those who like cookie-cutter civs can still play with them. But then, what is the point? Otherwise, it's just Civ I/II with updated graphics.

I guess those who go by the pacifist route can be SOL and never get the GA. However, I find that it is almost impossible to play through a whole game and not be involved in a skirmish, even in OCC games where conquest is not an option. AI will attack you eventually, especially if playing against six other civs. Besides, GA is not the be-all and end-all of civilization. It could be if you let it. If you can win the OCC, I don't see why you can't win without GA.

I, for one, look forward to these UU. Some say that you shouldn't know ahead of time which unit is unique to which civ. But we already know from the manual what techs we can research and what units and improvements we can build. You can even read the Civilopedia and peek at rules.txt. I don't think the devs put in new features to simulate realism, but to allow the player more choices and more strategies, and above all, more fun. We can only trust that Firaxis made the UU and GA (and Civ3 as a whole) strategically fun!! http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Another thing peole haven't seemed to catch on to is this:

Yes, Golden Ages--as they are currently implemented by being tied to civ-specific units--go against the idea of ahistorical realism and thus they're bad. But much more troubling is the fact that they negatively affect strategy.

Allow me to illustrate. Say Player A is playing the Americans against Player B, the Zulus. Now the Zulus won't need to worry about an American GA or special unit for many many turns, whereas the Americans will want to dig in and weather an Impi storm in the early game. No variation on this strategy is possible.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cwm33.gif" border=0>

STrategy will be a given, once the different civs on the board have been ascertained. It will be even easier against the AI of course. We'll take advantage of our knowledge of their civ-specific 'strengths' for no other reason than we magically know what they are from the beginning of time! (Military Advisor; "Oh, don't worry sir, those Germans won't be a real threat until they develop their Panzer tanks, but that won't happen for several centuries yet. Let's kick their ass now, before our superior bowmen become obsolete with the upcoming discovery of gunpowder."<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif" border=0> )

Why Sid et al think this adds realism to the game I'll never know. It adds the exact opposite. And predictability, to top it all off.

EDIT: spelling

[This message has been edited by goodbye_mr_bond (edited August 23, 2001).]

by Chinese American

We should not look too deep for any real-world historical similarities.

If you mean in terms of specific incidents or attributes to named societies, then you are absolutely right.....



Civ is a strategy game first and foremost

..... oh no no no! First and foremost civ is about how societies develop politically, economically, technologically and in relation to one another. Of course it is a strategy game; the subject is strategic in nature. But it is not an abstract game, it is not a wargame, it is not a transport management game, etc.

still Chinese American

but we already know ... what techs and research ... units ... improvements

now there is an area that could have been improved for civ 3. That would have been a major gain over civ 2 and would have been realistic appropriately.

Reading all the recent replies I'd like to slightly change my earlier suggestion. You could have some (not major) benefits on-board from a Golden Age argued (thank you Rastamon and Duke 'o York) as a slight increase in efficiency beyond the graph as a consequence of a society's "comfort" with itself. But it has to be hard to achieve, not just something on the tech tree, more like a set of threshholds to do with size and hapiness and comparison with near neighbours and combination of well balanced (ie not just warmongering) tech achievements.

Having said that I still feel it is a bit of a concession and the advantage has to decay fairly rapidly even if the trigger remains in place, or it becomes absurd.

As for linking it to the special units ... well the special units are an abomination. And to answer another misconception, special units are utterly unhistorical despite appearances. Military tecniques etc. always develop out of a combination of research and experience. So some civ arbitrarily obtaining that kind of advantage just because of its name is a total contradiction of the world I know. You really must understand the difference between historical process, which is what the game is about, and historical labels, which at best are there for atmosphere.

Duke 'o York suggested a rather long British Golden Age. Interesting. There was no Britain in the time of Elizabeth the so-called first. She was an English Queen. But even more curious the period seems to encompass the civil war and the Jacobite risings all of which at the time brought the country (England) virtually to its knees and out of which were periods of painful recovery.

As for Victoria. Have you never read Dickens' descriptions of life in Victorian Britain?

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited August 24, 2001).]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
..... oh no no no! First and foremost civ is about how societies develop politically, economically, technologically and in relation to one another. Of course it is a strategy game; the subject is strategic in nature. But it is not an abstract game, it is not a wargame, it is not a transport management game, etc.

Absolutely agree... I think exactly the same. The only problem is that the AI looks sometimes to play a wargame more than a "civilization" one. At the end the only sure way to win is to play it in a kind of wargame style. You produce tech improvements and build up your city only to have better military units... And that I don't like. I just wait for the new victory conditions and to see how those affect the AI strategies...

And I don't like the "special units" tied to any civ... Our civs must (are) like a white sheet of paper: we write it, but we don't need to repeat the same story two times http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

You can remove all historical allegories and Civ will be same strategic game in the end. We can see by the examples of creative mods and scenarios by Civ fans which have nothing to do with the evolution of civilization. Any historical facsimiles merely form a setting in which players can delve into without feeling like they're playing chess or some board game.

The special units are there to contribute strategic options; you can turn it off if you don't like them. There are some truths as to why some units are considered legendary and others just plain. We've heard of, for examples, US Marines, Spanish Armada, and Roman Legions, because they were head and shoulders above the rest. You might think they are no different from veteran or elite units, but the fact that they were distinctly mentioned in high school history books makes them special enough.

There are some truths as to why some units are considered legendary and others just plain. We've heard of, for examples, US Marines, Spanish Armada, and Roman Legions, because they were head and shoulders above the rest. [/B]

Yeah, but why all the special units have to be offensive? Why there isn't a special merchant or diplomat? Or scientists? or Artists?

Well, after spending some time thinking since my last post I'm pretty much back where I started: Golden Ages really are a bad idea. They are an artificial construct forced into the game at fairly set intervals without regard to the civilizations they are supposed to reflect. You know the concept has been mishandled when the music tells you that in your "Golden Age", and from a gameplay perspective not in a golden age at all, but losing a war, suffering from famine, stagnating.....

It seems to me that someone at Firaxis said, "hey let's have golden ages!" and shuffled it off to the programmers to find trigger. Well finding a meaningful trigger is definitely challenging. Perhaps because a golden age, in it's true form, identifies a period when a civilization was at it's relative peak. This is not something easily identified at the moment. It comes with the benefit of hindsight.

If they really want golden ages then they should to throw them into the replay feature. With the game, and history, at an end we can somewhat more realistically identify the period when a civ was at it's relative peak. The remainder of the golden age idea should be tossed. I've seen many better ideas much more worthy of inclusion. Unfortunately I'm not very optimistic the idea will be re-worked at this late stage, with the game evidently in beta.

'nuf said. I've just noticed you are from Alexandria, Heffalump. Well I am too. Alexandria Dunbartonshire. But I don't live there anymore. I hope folks don't think that's why we agree on thishttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

Originally posted by boca:
Yeah, but why all the special units have to be offensive? Why there isn't a special merchant or diplomat? Or scientists? or Artists?



Because it's not how it works in the game. You gotta draw the line somewhere or else the game will never be finished. I wish there was wizards and dragons in the game, but it's not going to happen--at least not this time around.

It'll be pretty cool to build travelling bards or wandering rabbis, though, no? http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

Originally posted by Chinese American:
You gotta draw the line somewhere or else the game will never be finished.

I guess you're right. Maybe we should star gathering ideas for Civ 4 http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/groucho-marx.gif

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
Scrooge: because that is the way it happened; had circumstances been different then it could have been another way.


In the game it is YOU, who sets the circumstances.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2"><FONT COLOR="green">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland". - </FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/icons/icon22.gif" border=0>
-- J.Quack Kennedy</FONT s></FONT f>

Scrooge: I'm glad we agree on that. The way you set the circumstances is by doing the research, developing the economy, relating to our neighbours etc. Just like in real life, applying thought and effort. Not by calling ourselves Romans or Vikings and getting a free bonus just for that - this is the stuff of fantasy and therefore is nonsense in civ.

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jedi rat:
¡KYou assume that you find and kill those “later benefit civs? My question is: DO you play that game to kill most of you rivals in first 10 turns?¡K¡K
Gentlemen,
I want to provide my personal experience about this question. No affectation, when I play Civ¢º on a small map, I almost occupy all my rivals' cities when I have musketeer. To get the highest score, I won't destroy them at all. Otherwise, I let them survive with ONE city and 1 or 2 citizens live in. To prevent their growth, I will send my army to siege their petty residence. Therefore, their city produce no more food and production and all they can do is to wait for the time pass by and watch my Space Ship be built, having hundreds of future techonologies and make all the tiles to be grassland.
I guess, If I can get militaristic advantage in the middle of game, maybe I can replay this story again.
Just my humble opinion. Thankyou in advance.

Everyone seems to be against golden ages because they mean that your choice of civ affects the way the game is played, not just how you play the game: this is a good thing!!
It works well in aok, no one there plays with it off even though it is an option. It means that it is easier to diversify and have different strategies depending on your civ: your choice affects the game and you must pick a civ you like playing: generally it means more strategy not less. Remember everyone just because you are on an Island and dont have a golden age based on boats doesnt mean you cant build boats (amazing innit http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif) If you really do want cookie cutter civs you can have them but I really like the idea of the golden age : i think ill play english or french first cos their golden ages are pretty much guaranteed (earlier civs are not) but do not come to late to not count

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

On a side note- I hope there are ecological problems that result from over terraforming the planet- NOT just in producing big industry- I mean if the original balance of grassland to other terrains is 30% grassland, and after you get going it's up to 50% SOMETHING should happen... not looking for realism here, just game balance.

Maybe godzilla could come and stomp on a city or two... http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif

Graeme,

no one disputes the potential for strategic variation. If you read the posts carefully you will see that the issue is that this kind of change is not civ, its just another strategy game and might as well evolve into a war/fantasy/abstract game. You are welcome to it but it leads to there being no new game in the civilization genre and that would be utterly sad.

Leonard,

I find it rather boring when there is no opposition left worth worrying over. High scores are a rather dry incentive most of the time. I would rather be teetering on the edg of extinction and fighting back. Perhaps you are an accountanthttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif Still, everyone to his/her own.

Dearmad,

(name sounds a bit like Diarmidhttp://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif) That is an excellent idea. Reduction in forests, increase in cultivated areas etc. All potential for ecological change. Don't worry about game balance, this is a reality balance you are proposing. Resource depletion comes to mind in a similar vein.

everyone or anyone,

presumably "cookie cutter" is some clever new metaphor (don't you just love them?), but what does it mean?

It seems to be used derogatorily about people objecting to unrealistic and unnecessary civ specific mods, but no one is saying all start points have to be the same. There is plenty of scope for variation concerning terrain, starting techs, peronality profiles, number of settlers at start, nature and proximity of neighbours, not to mention the goody/scary huts. And since right away you have a wide branching tree of possible strategies it is hard to imagine two civs looking alike after ten minutes of play, never mind after a few thousand years when one of the so called golden ages might kick in.

If anyone thinks that civilization or civ 2 lack variety and replayability on a vast scale, then they must be playing in the dark.

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true