So this is my first strategy article and will by all means be incomplete and possibly incorrect, but I'm going to try my best.
The reason I wanted to write this is that I just played a huge marathon game with Spain where I had four successive Golden Ages with MoM. Yes, that is, indeed, 96 turns of Golden Age. Three great people, one Taj Mahal, and one random event (best random event, ever).
But I have been wondering whether or not they are worth it, and how they compare to others. I'm an immortal player, and want to get the token deity win, and the first question I am asking is, when shall I use a GA?
The appropriate metric of comparison will be beakers.
Conditions:
- 5 cities,
- average city size 6 (7 tiles worked, suppose each has some commerce and some hammers, then you're getting 7 extra commerce and 7 extra hammers per turn)
- cities can build research
- we're not spiritual
- we're not using great people
- No Mausoleum of Maussolos (its been said that if you plan for GA then you plan for MoM. Not always possible. But all you need to do is times everything by 1.5 for MoM)
- research slider at 100%
- normal
I understand these conditions are wildly irrelevant but lets start! The basic premise will be to consider what we could get from a GP, and then compare (in beaker terms) what using the GP(s) as a Golden age do for our civ.
Suppose each city is building research. Then 8 turns, 5 cities, 7 tiles, you're going to get 8x5x14 = 560 extra beakers. This really isn't that good. Even the philosophy bulb is like 800 beakers so forget that.
It goes without saying that we'd rarely want a GA unless we had a relatively large empire size anyway. So suppose we have ten cities. That's still only 1160 beakers which isn't that great.
SO let's make things more interesting. Suppose we've got about 15 cities with average size of 8. That gives additional beakers of 15x18x8=2160 so just about worth taking this over a philosophy bulb.
However after this things become harder, because GA's become more expensive. It goes without saying that the Taj is worthwhile, even to use a great engineer. But imagine using say, a merchant AND a scientist, when that scientist could be bulging engineering or getting 1000 odd beakers towards education, AND using the merchant who could trade mission for a few thousand gold? the GA is simply not worth it at two or more, on beakers alone, in this restricted model, where all 15 cities produce research.
You lose out on about 2000-3000 beakers for the second golden age (equating one gold to one beaker - I think this is right?), and just about break even for the first. 15 cities, size 8 on average, all building research.
GP Farms
The question is, is, do I really want to spend this Great scientist on a golden age? well the chances are, there will be a gp farm city in this civ of yours somewhere. If we are not philosophical then the golden age is going to reduce the time of getting great people by 33% with NE (in the national epic city, since the base rate is already modified by 100% for National epic), 50% without. Assuming you want to run specialists for 8 turns (the length of the GA), you run them for 8 turns instead of running them for 16. This gain is very important. In terms of the tiles scientist vs high commerce is fairly innocuous. But if I am spouting great scientists here it might allow me to bulb a tech 8 turns earlier than I otherwise would. Similarly great people might be necessary for tactical reasons (GA for culture vic, spies, engineers for wonders, you get the point).
So the advantage of GA if you have a gp farm is that you get a technology 8 turns earlier, or thereabouts. This can be important for a number of reasons. It might allow you to trade it, to exploit an advantage (most wars can be won in under 8 turns after all, on marathon). Similarly if you use the first golden age to get a second, and THEN to get GP to get techs (most likely, you have two GP farms going on), then if time isn't a factor you can get a bigger payoff but later using the successive golden age strategy
No anarchy
being spiritual is overlooked. If you're producing x beakers a turn and you decide to revolt into bureaucracy and cast system then on marathon you'e looking at like 2/3 turns of anarchy. Thats awful. If you have a big empire you're losing thousands of beakers. In the model we have, we've got 15 cities, size 8 on average, each producing research with the slider at 100%. Suppose each city is stagnant growth, and the average tile has like three commerce/hammers and two food (think riverside grass/hamlet, or whichever the cottage with two commerce is). Then each city is producing about 25 beakers per turn. 15 cities during anarchy lose you about 15x25x3=1125 beakers!
Not only does the GA eliminate this beaker loss, but it also allows you the advantage of using the traits straight away. It also is very useful if you want to switch BACK into a civic, which can be done at the end of the GA. So depending on whether or not you are spiritual, this can be an enormous advantage, to the tune of maybe 2000 beakers.
Three Great People
The third golden age is usually overkill. You need three great people, and while running great merchants is fine, in one city you'll need an artist (Or you'll have to sacrifice a spy for a golden age! disgusting behaviour. I love spies. Infiltrate tech leader/neighbour please). hence for all the turns where you're running the artist you could have had beakers producing using scientists or been working tiles to produce units in that city. There is also the added risk that in most GP cities you'll have a few wonders which obviously dilute the gene pool which can make your plans to have a third GA incredible. The saving grace of the third golden age comes as follows.
IN my last game I had an enormous empire, a massive tech lead, huge armies, the lot. About 35 cities average size 11, AND the mausoleum of Maussolos. Quick calculations and you have a golden age creating an additional 35x24x24 = 20160 beakers! (marathon) Thats 35 cities, all producing research, slider 100%, 24 turns of golden age. Even with three Great people, that's bloody worth it. True, you have to wait 24 turns (8 turns in normal) for the beakers to be realised but if you are in such a position then this is another example of getting a bigger payoff later.
In the time it takes you to generate a scientist, a merchant, and an artist (say) you could have had 15000 beakers put into tech. By waiting for the GA you get more beakers on aggregate, spiritual bonus, and great people bonus spread over the following 24 turns. So with a large enough empire you see that Golden Ages, even with three great people, can be worth it.
Multipliers
When you run a golden age there are likely to be multipliers already in play. For example, if every city has a library, slider is at 100% and all cities build research, then the additional beakers you get from the golden age will increase by 25%, which is quite significant. Secondly, this ignores the fact you might be playing a bureaucracy capital, with other multipliers like universities, oxford, laboratories perhaps. These in turn, make the golden age even more effective. Similarly, so long as the slider is not at 0%, commerce multipliers will also influence how much extra beaker points you get per turn.
Moral of the story - How is your tech lead?
We saw that with 15 cities at average size 8 the first golden age was just about worth it. This can be scaled accordingly, so that with more cities that are bigger, a golden age that uses two great people can be justified. It is even more justifiable in the presence of MoM, a lack of spiritual trait, the philosophical trait, and multiple GP farms.
In fact, with a large enough empire, even three great people is worth it in beaker terms. However this ignores probably the most important thing. Many of these articles on civilisation focus on beaker for beaker comparisons but not comparisons over time. Golden ages last 8 turns. 8 f'ing turns! Thats ages for the additional beakers to be realised. Whereas using great people to bulb techs is INSTANT. In Turn 100 I can bulb education and hence research liberalism one turn before Mansu Musa, or I can spend my scientist on a golden age that gives me just as many beakers but means that I miss out on liberalism and hence military tradition. No cuirassiers, no win.
The golden age is therefore only viable if the tech that you would bulb can be researched later, i.e if time is on your side. I used the phrase a bigger payoff later quite a lot and I think it is true with golden ages, because in the right conditions they're really quite good, but if you need a technology right here, right now, then the GA is a mistake. Those of you reading this might think of a cuirassier rush, a liberalism beeline, founding a religion first, getting a monopoly on a technology more quickly, and so on.
Conclusion
I'm very sorry this article is so long and wordy I'm conscious it also isn't very concise but I just wanted to put the word out there that if you have spare great people and it fits with your strategy that Golden Ages are really great and there's no point just doing a needless if you're ahead. I've tried to compare everything in per beaker terms - I know the assumption of all cities building research and the slider at 100% is unrealistic but it's just meant to be an indicator! These are all just napkin calculations and I hope you find this useful.
Will be especially grateful for any additions or corrections
- Hugethman
The reason I wanted to write this is that I just played a huge marathon game with Spain where I had four successive Golden Ages with MoM. Yes, that is, indeed, 96 turns of Golden Age. Three great people, one Taj Mahal, and one random event (best random event, ever).
But I have been wondering whether or not they are worth it, and how they compare to others. I'm an immortal player, and want to get the token deity win, and the first question I am asking is, when shall I use a GA?
The appropriate metric of comparison will be beakers.
Conditions:
- 5 cities,
- average city size 6 (7 tiles worked, suppose each has some commerce and some hammers, then you're getting 7 extra commerce and 7 extra hammers per turn)
- cities can build research
- we're not spiritual
- we're not using great people
- No Mausoleum of Maussolos (its been said that if you plan for GA then you plan for MoM. Not always possible. But all you need to do is times everything by 1.5 for MoM)
- research slider at 100%
- normal
I understand these conditions are wildly irrelevant but lets start! The basic premise will be to consider what we could get from a GP, and then compare (in beaker terms) what using the GP(s) as a Golden age do for our civ.
Suppose each city is building research. Then 8 turns, 5 cities, 7 tiles, you're going to get 8x5x14 = 560 extra beakers. This really isn't that good. Even the philosophy bulb is like 800 beakers so forget that.
It goes without saying that we'd rarely want a GA unless we had a relatively large empire size anyway. So suppose we have ten cities. That's still only 1160 beakers which isn't that great.
SO let's make things more interesting. Suppose we've got about 15 cities with average size of 8. That gives additional beakers of 15x18x8=2160 so just about worth taking this over a philosophy bulb.
However after this things become harder, because GA's become more expensive. It goes without saying that the Taj is worthwhile, even to use a great engineer. But imagine using say, a merchant AND a scientist, when that scientist could be bulging engineering or getting 1000 odd beakers towards education, AND using the merchant who could trade mission for a few thousand gold? the GA is simply not worth it at two or more, on beakers alone, in this restricted model, where all 15 cities produce research.
You lose out on about 2000-3000 beakers for the second golden age (equating one gold to one beaker - I think this is right?), and just about break even for the first. 15 cities, size 8 on average, all building research.
GP Farms
The question is, is, do I really want to spend this Great scientist on a golden age? well the chances are, there will be a gp farm city in this civ of yours somewhere. If we are not philosophical then the golden age is going to reduce the time of getting great people by 33% with NE (in the national epic city, since the base rate is already modified by 100% for National epic), 50% without. Assuming you want to run specialists for 8 turns (the length of the GA), you run them for 8 turns instead of running them for 16. This gain is very important. In terms of the tiles scientist vs high commerce is fairly innocuous. But if I am spouting great scientists here it might allow me to bulb a tech 8 turns earlier than I otherwise would. Similarly great people might be necessary for tactical reasons (GA for culture vic, spies, engineers for wonders, you get the point).
So the advantage of GA if you have a gp farm is that you get a technology 8 turns earlier, or thereabouts. This can be important for a number of reasons. It might allow you to trade it, to exploit an advantage (most wars can be won in under 8 turns after all, on marathon). Similarly if you use the first golden age to get a second, and THEN to get GP to get techs (most likely, you have two GP farms going on), then if time isn't a factor you can get a bigger payoff but later using the successive golden age strategy
No anarchy
being spiritual is overlooked. If you're producing x beakers a turn and you decide to revolt into bureaucracy and cast system then on marathon you'e looking at like 2/3 turns of anarchy. Thats awful. If you have a big empire you're losing thousands of beakers. In the model we have, we've got 15 cities, size 8 on average, each producing research with the slider at 100%. Suppose each city is stagnant growth, and the average tile has like three commerce/hammers and two food (think riverside grass/hamlet, or whichever the cottage with two commerce is). Then each city is producing about 25 beakers per turn. 15 cities during anarchy lose you about 15x25x3=1125 beakers!
Not only does the GA eliminate this beaker loss, but it also allows you the advantage of using the traits straight away. It also is very useful if you want to switch BACK into a civic, which can be done at the end of the GA. So depending on whether or not you are spiritual, this can be an enormous advantage, to the tune of maybe 2000 beakers.
Three Great People
The third golden age is usually overkill. You need three great people, and while running great merchants is fine, in one city you'll need an artist (Or you'll have to sacrifice a spy for a golden age! disgusting behaviour. I love spies. Infiltrate tech leader/neighbour please). hence for all the turns where you're running the artist you could have had beakers producing using scientists or been working tiles to produce units in that city. There is also the added risk that in most GP cities you'll have a few wonders which obviously dilute the gene pool which can make your plans to have a third GA incredible. The saving grace of the third golden age comes as follows.
IN my last game I had an enormous empire, a massive tech lead, huge armies, the lot. About 35 cities average size 11, AND the mausoleum of Maussolos. Quick calculations and you have a golden age creating an additional 35x24x24 = 20160 beakers! (marathon) Thats 35 cities, all producing research, slider 100%, 24 turns of golden age. Even with three Great people, that's bloody worth it. True, you have to wait 24 turns (8 turns in normal) for the beakers to be realised but if you are in such a position then this is another example of getting a bigger payoff later.
In the time it takes you to generate a scientist, a merchant, and an artist (say) you could have had 15000 beakers put into tech. By waiting for the GA you get more beakers on aggregate, spiritual bonus, and great people bonus spread over the following 24 turns. So with a large enough empire you see that Golden Ages, even with three great people, can be worth it.
Multipliers
When you run a golden age there are likely to be multipliers already in play. For example, if every city has a library, slider is at 100% and all cities build research, then the additional beakers you get from the golden age will increase by 25%, which is quite significant. Secondly, this ignores the fact you might be playing a bureaucracy capital, with other multipliers like universities, oxford, laboratories perhaps. These in turn, make the golden age even more effective. Similarly, so long as the slider is not at 0%, commerce multipliers will also influence how much extra beaker points you get per turn.
Moral of the story - How is your tech lead?
We saw that with 15 cities at average size 8 the first golden age was just about worth it. This can be scaled accordingly, so that with more cities that are bigger, a golden age that uses two great people can be justified. It is even more justifiable in the presence of MoM, a lack of spiritual trait, the philosophical trait, and multiple GP farms.
In fact, with a large enough empire, even three great people is worth it in beaker terms. However this ignores probably the most important thing. Many of these articles on civilisation focus on beaker for beaker comparisons but not comparisons over time. Golden ages last 8 turns. 8 f'ing turns! Thats ages for the additional beakers to be realised. Whereas using great people to bulb techs is INSTANT. In Turn 100 I can bulb education and hence research liberalism one turn before Mansu Musa, or I can spend my scientist on a golden age that gives me just as many beakers but means that I miss out on liberalism and hence military tradition. No cuirassiers, no win.
The golden age is therefore only viable if the tech that you would bulb can be researched later, i.e if time is on your side. I used the phrase a bigger payoff later quite a lot and I think it is true with golden ages, because in the right conditions they're really quite good, but if you need a technology right here, right now, then the GA is a mistake. Those of you reading this might think of a cuirassier rush, a liberalism beeline, founding a religion first, getting a monopoly on a technology more quickly, and so on.
Conclusion
I'm very sorry this article is so long and wordy I'm conscious it also isn't very concise but I just wanted to put the word out there that if you have spare great people and it fits with your strategy that Golden Ages are really great and there's no point just doing a needless if you're ahead. I've tried to compare everything in per beaker terms - I know the assumption of all cities building research and the slider at 100% is unrealistic but it's just meant to be an indicator! These are all just napkin calculations and I hope you find this useful.
Will be especially grateful for any additions or corrections
- Hugethman
The time it takes to create GP is reduced by 33% in NE city and by 50% without NE (assuming not PHI and no pacifism). If you switch to pacifism for the duration of the golden age, the time it takes to create a GP is reduced by 50% in NE city and by 66% without NE. If you also switch to caste for the duration of the golden age, you can reduce the time needed to produce GP by a lot more.
is worth 3
. Add uni+Oxford and a monastery, then one 
is 2.4
