Starting Game in Different Age

[Naismith]

I've played one (single user) game where I did not start in the Ancient Age. I started in the Classical Age, I believe (the second age). It was kind of a refreshing change, even if a bit odd. I was wondering if starting in an age after Ancient would make the AI more competitive.

For instance, if you start in an age when everyone already has Alphabet, then you don't have the advantage of the very low research priority the AI puts on Alphabet. Certain very effective strategies such as the axeman rush certainly wouldn't apply. Of course, each age might have an equivalent - a rifleman rush? My theory is the AI would be a bit more competitive.

Starting in a later age would also nerf many UU's. Quechas wouldn't be especially useful.

What do people think in general of starting games in later ages?

 

[King Flevance]

I simply cannot do it. It bugs the crap out of me for some reason. I have only done it once in a multiplayer game and it bothered me the whole way through, I felt I was missing part of my game.

 

[elderotter]

interesting thought - will have to try it and let you know.

 

[Drakan]

Actually I had trouble winning on Monarch and Prince starting in Ancient.

On my last game I started off from Classical and it was impressively easy. I almost built all ancient wonders (Pyramids, Stonehenge, Hanging Gardens, Parthenon, Great Library, Chitchen Itza...) and even had time for two wars. I was almost in the lead since turn one on the graphs on the right side.

With such an impressive start neadless to say I won the game. But I found it most disturbing that playing on those same levels from the Ancient era I struggle to catch up and play from behind only levelling up once I'm the first to Alphabet and trade around for other techs.

But in this last game starting in the Classical era, despite the level of difficulty being the same, it's as If the AI was a total nerd managing it's units and production the first 60 turns or so. It was just so easy to take away the wonders from it. I played as Mansa Musa on a standard map against 6 other civs.

 

[Naismith]

Actually I had trouble winning on Monarch and Prince starting in Ancient.

On my last game I started off from Classical and it was impressively easy. I almost built all ancient wonders (Pyramids, Stonehenge, Hanging Gardens, Parthenon, Great Library, Chitchen Itza...) and even had time for two wars. I was almost in the lead since turn one on the graphs on the right side.

With such an impressive start neadless to say I won the game. But I found it most disturbing that playing on those same levels from the Ancient era I struggle to catch up and play from behind only levelling up once I'm the first to Alphabet and trade around for other techs.

But in this last game starting in the Classical era, despite the level of difficulty being the same, it's as If the AI was a total nerd managing it's units and production the first 60 turns or so. It was just so easy to take away the wonders from it. I played as Mansa Musa on a standard map against 6 other civs.

The one game I played on Classical I don't remember how the wonder situation played out. I usually concentrate more on military, and build wonders sparingly - unless and until I get way ahead. It didn't seem harder or easier than other Prince games I had played. I think I was on a small inland sea map, and played Isabella (random).

The start was funky. The techs for the first three religions were already researched by all Civs. Three turns after I started the game, I got Buddhism, and Judaism and Hinduism were given to two other Civs. I kind of wonder how it is determined who gets these religions?

I played about 10 turns of a game I started in the 3rd age last night. Four religions were researched. Again, they were parcelled out three turns into the game. I started the game with two archers, two settlers, an explorer, and a worker. I plunked my second settler down next to some iron and started building a catapult. I guess after chopping some workers and researching Machinery, I would have hooked up iron, and built some macemen. A maceman and catapult rush might work very nicely.

 

[Armorydave]

Three turns after I started the game, I got Buddhism, and Judaism and Hinduism were given to two other Civs. I kind of wonder how it is determined who gets these religions?

I would parcel out amongst the Spiritual Civs if I was writing the code.

I have never started a game outside the Ancient Era except scenarios. No real desire as I like the epic feeling of the long game (which is why I generally avoid scenarios)

 

[.Shane.]

When you start in the later ages, do you already have a bunch of cities, improvements, etc... ?

 

[King Flevance]

No still a settler and a unit. I think based off how long they give you another settler and some guards. Been a while since I remember but I think you start off with a little extra boost. But you have no cities.

 

[Naismith]

I would parcel out amongst the Spiritual Civs if I was writing the code.

I have never started a game outside the Ancient Era except scenarios. No real desire as I like the epic feeling of the long game (which is why I generally avoid scenarios)

I'm basically looking for a way to shorten the period of time between these two points: When I have established enough dominance that I basically can't lose, and when I can actually win the game (diplomatic, domination, etc.) It seems to me that I spend the majority of my time playing games where victory is a foregone conclusion.

Go up another level is the usual advice here, but I don't want to go up to a level that practically requires non-stop war in order to win. So, it occurred to me that if I start the game in a later age, I can finish it off with space race or diplomatic much sooner than otherwise. FYI, I've been playing on Prince mostly, and just tried my first Monarch game lately. Monarch is ok, but I think that Emporer might suck all the fun of it for me.

 

[Mad Professor]

When you start in the later ages, do you already have a bunch of cities, improvements, etc... ?

If you start in the modern era, you start with:
3 settlers
3 marines
2 explorers
2 workers

And because you have all pre modern era techs, you can see where all the resources are.

Modern start is not one you want to do if you enjoy the thrill of developing a civilisation from scratch, but I play it occasionally so I can have fun with modern techs and arms which doesn't tend to happen much when I start in the ancient era.

 

[Mad Professor]

I simply cannot do it. It bugs the crap out of me for some reason. I have only done it once in a multiplayer game and it bothered me the whole way through, I felt I was missing part of my game.

I think the ability to startthe game at various eras is an excellent feature because it increases the flexibility of the game and allows you to concentrate on parts of the process you really like - if you want to. On the other hand, you'll never use that feature if you enjoy the ancient era, and starting things from scratch and you get satisfaction from that. Each to their own enjoyment, one could say? I don't use it much, but because a lot of games I play from the ancient era finish before the modern era really gets going, I enjoy the occasional modern start for variety.

 

[Chieftess]

It's fun starting in a different era. Some of the eras bring new tactics to use, too.

 

[Speaker]

The AI gets progressively less competant the later you start. In Renaissance, the AI will build Catapults in their capital, and will not found their second city until they have built several extra units (despite the fact that each civ starts with 2 settlers).

For MP, Renaissance and later starts are a great time because there is plenty to do from the very beginning. Compared to Renaissance/Modern/Future, Ancient is boring!!

 

[Landstander]

I love starting in different eras. Everyone is scrambling to establish and grow cities for a while before anyone has a reasonable science output, so basically everyone gets settled and once most of the land is taken and the cities are growing things begin to get competitive.
Hard part is rushing to grab those good city spots (at least on continents-style with ample opponents).
I highly recommend it!

 

[Mad Professor]

The AI gets progressively less competant the later you start. In Renaissance, the AI will build Catapults in their capital, and will not found their second city until they have built several extra units (despite the fact that each civ starts with 2 settlers).

I've never played a Renaissance start, but this is not my experience with modern starts. In every one I've played, those three settlers have all been used quickly by the AI's except when they start on an island where there's not room for all three cities (I had this once on an achaepelago map) and they have to build boats before they can settle all three.

For MP, Renaissance and later starts are a great time because there is plenty to do from the very beginning. Compared to Renaissance/Modern/Future, Ancient is boring!!

I agree - the pace really gets going fairly early. It's action from quite early on.

 

[covok48]

I tried starting in the modern era once. I got bold and attacked my nearest AI attacker before I really had an economy or an effective number of units. His stealth bombers made short work of me...

 

[Drakan]

I haven't played a renaissance start either.

What I have noticed is that starting in the Classiacal era and playing a spiritual civ I'm granted Judaism (same religion always, ¿?) the second or third turn from the start. The problem is that If I try to change from religion later on in the game doesn't allow me. Whereas If I play a Spiritual civ from the Ancient era the game allows me to change religions.

This is a major drawback because it means you have to choose the civic free religion so as to stop constant religious wars with neighbours It is a huge advantage to change a religion to match that of your neighbours to avoid these never ending wars but with a Classical era start you cannot. Haven't tried other starts so I have no idea If this is particular to this era start or what.

 

[armchairknight]

I simply cannot do it. It bugs the crap out of me for some reason. I have only done it once in a multiplayer game and it bothered me the whole way through, I felt I was missing part of my game.

I've tried a 20th century mod and it just felt wierd to have modern infantry at the start along with my settler. It was harder for me to get into the game. Maybe it's just because I'm a long time player used to the ancient start. I don't know.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I haven't played a renaissance start either.

What I have noticed is that starting in the Classiacal era and playing a spiritual civ I'm granted Judaism (same religion always, ¿?) the second or third turn from the start. The problem is that If I try to change from religion later on in the game doesn't allow me. Whereas If I play a Spiritual civ from the Ancient era the game allows me to change religions.

This is a major drawback because it means you have to choose the civic free religion so as to stop constant religious wars with neighbours It is a huge advantage to change a religion to match that of your neighbours to avoid these never ending wars but with a Classical era start you cannot. Haven't tried other starts so I have no idea If this is particular to this era start or what.

This may be because you can't change to a religion that isn't in any of your cities.

And as for who gets the religion, I think it just cycles through the civs and parcels them out... essentially its like all civs have founded the religion on the same turn, so the game randomly selects cities for those religions to be founded in...an existing religion decreasing the chance substantially. (so each city tends to get one religion... or none if it is unlucky and religions<civs or cities... if religions>civs or cities then everyone should get one and some civs or cities would get two)


One other nice thing about startin in advanced ages is that all of your cities start with some buildings already.

 

[Mad Professor]

And as for who gets the religion, I think it just cycles through the civs and parcels them out... essentially its like all civs have founded the religion on the same turn, so the game randomly selects cities for those religions to be founded in...an existing religion decreasing the chance substantially. (so each city tends to get one religion... or none if it is unlucky and religions<civs or cities... if religions>civs or cities then everyone should get one and some civs or cities would get two).

This makes sense, but it doesn't seem to match what I've seen. In every single modern start I've played, I've founded Judaism. I've never founded another. Ever. I'm interested that someone else has observed the same thing. There's got to be a sensible resaon for that - it can't just be chance. Is it the order the computer does it in? (First religion on the list to the first civ on the list which happens to be the human player? [For example] ???)