Why golden ages are a bad idea.

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:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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!!!!

Click to expand...

lol okay, u win



------------------
<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!

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.