Dark Age better than Heroic Age?

[tetley]

Right now I'm planning my game to see if I can play some strong DA combos. Merchant Republic + Isolationism seems to be my thing. Monasticism looks like you could just play it all DA, and then you've got Inquisition right there, since you prepped for it with Holy Sites. Warriors + Galleys + 1 spearman + Oligarchy + Twilight looks strong, except you're in Classical age and not Ancient. But if you're playing higher diff, that's just how it is. Persia looks like they could kill it. Letters of Marque looks like a killer, since you only need it long enough to build a navy.

Late game policies look even better, and you can plan ahead by building Forbidden Palace.

 

[leandrombraz]

I wonder if the reason some of you think it's so easy is because you're just very good/experienced with the game. R&F has been out for quite a while now, I guess anyone who's been playing it since release will have nailed down the routines to get era points.

For me, I only played vanilla for a few games before losing interest (I didnt like vanilla so much). Then I picked the game up again recently, getting GS and R&F together. I probably have played less than 10 full games with the expansions and I still struggle to get era points. I'd probably do better if I looked at the list of ways to score points but when I'm playing I just want to keep the flow going. Some important sources of era points are eays to remember like unique units or buildings, circumnavigation, first unit of each strategic resource, etc. Others not so much. But even then it's not something that's constantly on my mind, at first I used to get to the end of an era and then think "oh no, I forgot about era points". But i'm getting better at it with every game.

Still though, I dont like to play my game like a to-do list chasing after eurekas, inspirations, and era points. Not that I dont try to get them, of course I do, but I dislike going out of my way for them if it's not what I want to do, even if in the long run I might be better off getting x or y eureka/bonus/era point. It would just detract from my enjoyment to play the game too formulaicly.

I'd say I get an unintentional dark age in about half my games, more so at immortal or deity difficulties. The other thing I noticed is that it's a bit harder to get golden ages if I'm not aggressive, especially if I start with several nearby neighbors. But sometimes golden ages do have a domino effect of one leading to the other. Heroic ages are just awesome.

I rarely worry about points, aside from being careful not to waste points when I already got the golden age (wait into the next era to build a unique unit, for example). Ancient and sometimes the Classical era are the only ones where I might stop to do the math, after that I get so much points above what I need, there's no reason to pay much attention to it. I just get one golden age after the other for playing the game, no to-do-list chasing required.

I think it's a matter of how you play the game. Most of the source of points are things that you do if you're trying to be as effective as possible.

 

[Sostratus]

I think it's commonly accepted here that if you don't have pressing loyalty issues like a neighbor Eleanor, dark age card bonuses completely outstrip most of the golden dedications. Excepting a few like CH/harbor players relying on free inquiry, or the monumentality civilian spam, things like +75% science with a HS or isolationism or twilight valor can be much more impactful early game than being able to pick up a couple extra builders and settlers.

I think the imbalance of how era score is distributed also creates the issue that successful empires that achieve golden ages after the mid game often find it hard to not chain them together. Virtually every source of era score is available the whole game long. If they had about half the era score locked to the current world era, so you had to be flexible on your goals, that would be another thing.
What's really funny is the power of dark age cards after the industrial is hilariously greater than the early game ones.
Robber Barons is so OP (+25% in all cities with a factory and +50% in all cities with a stock exchange, but -2 Amenities in all cities) I don't even understand how it's in the game. Collectivism stacked with it is truly egregious (Farms +1, All cities +2 housing, +100% IZ adjacency, but -50% great people points) like it can almost double your production, especially after the june patch for IZs. Just an aqueduct next to an IZ with these cards is worth 15 production (2 base, +200% w/ craftsmen& collectivism, x2 including the coal plant, plus +25% for the factory.)
Then we get to the new GS cards like Flower Power, which doubles the cost of non-rock band land units, but rock concerts give +100% tourism, or Cyber Warfare, which gives you +10 against all info and future era units, at the measly cost of no grievance decay. Straight up +10 against all end game units is hilarious, especially since you can add in the fascism legacy.
Any late game empire that can leverage these is simply going to steamroll.

Can you imagine if early game dark cards were like that? +10 strength against all classical & medieval era units? Or renaissance Collectivism? The only thing chaining them down is that it's so hard to get late game dark ages if you are trying to win.

 

[Imaus]

The Rein Dark Age IRL would be like the Religious European Wars, the Mamluke-Ottoman conflict, the rise of Mughals, the Ming-Qing switch, and the Shogunate beginning in Japan, right?

Is the Cold-War a Info Era dark age or a Atomic era one?

 

[Scaramanga]

I dunno, i'd rather not aim for a dark age. At least, it would make forward settling very hard.

 

[tetley]

You can forward settle the following heroic.

 

[Scaramanga]

You can forward settle the following heroic.

An entire age that stunts expansion doesn't sound good.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I think it's commonly accepted here that if you don't have pressing loyalty issues like a neighbor Eleanor, dark age card bonuses completely outstrip most of the golden dedications. Excepting a few like CH/harbor players relying on free inquiry, or the monumentality civilian spam, things like +75% science with a HS or isolationism or twilight valor can be much more impactful early game than being able to pick up a couple extra builders and settlers.

I think the imbalance of how era score is distributed also creates the issue that successful empires that achieve golden ages after the mid game often find it hard to not chain them together. Virtually every source of era score is available the whole game long. If they had about half the era score locked to the current world era, so you had to be flexible on your goals, that would be another thing.
What's really funny is the power of dark age cards after the industrial is hilariously greater than the early game ones.
Robber Barons is so OP (+25% in all cities with a factory and +50% in all cities with a stock exchange, but -2 Amenities in all cities) I don't even understand how it's in the game. Collectivism stacked with it is truly egregious (Farms +1, All cities +2 housing, +100% IZ adjacency, but -50% great people points) like it can almost double your production, especially after the june patch for IZs. Just an aqueduct next to an IZ with these cards is worth 15 production (2 base, +200% w/ craftsmen& collectivism, x2 including the coal plant, plus +25% for the factory.)
Then we get to the new GS cards like Flower Power, which doubles the cost of non-rock band land units, but rock concerts give +100% tourism, or Cyber Warfare, which gives you +10 against all info and future era units, at the measly cost of no grievance decay. Straight up +10 against all end game units is hilarious, especially since you can add in the fascism legacy.
Any late game empire that can leverage these is simply going to steamroll.

Can you imagine if early game dark cards were like that? +10 strength against all classical & medieval era units? Or renaissance Collectivism? The only thing chaining them down is that it's so hard to get late game dark ages if you are trying to win.

The real problem is that eras doesn't follow actual game pace. On online speed things become better but the game still ends at Industrial or Modern era. (At that time in fact all AI Civs are at information or future era too). So there's really no time for you to place these cards (or make use of the related golden age bonus)

Early game monasticism is good enough. +75% science, OP, in fact monasticism+ Jesuit edu is better than Choral Music+Monumentality. (However the latter combination is easier to get)

 

[AntSou]

First, the challenge to try and keep your era score LOW.

That's way too gamey for some people. I always kind of roleplay in Civ and I find this kind of stuff off putting.

 

[tetley]

I just experienced DA and HA in late-game. I definitely like Heroic better in the late-game. The dedication bonuses are just too awesome. And unlike DA policy cards, dedications do not come with downsides. But for Renaissance, I'm a Dark Age fan. Even late-game, I would still gladly take a DA over a Golden Age, though.

I also like how I can Amani-flip my neighbors' cities in Heroic. Once they flip to Free, you can take them militarily without declaring war. Our cities are just not normally packed so tightly together earlier in the game. Seems like rush-buying Water Parks and then using Bread and Circuses combined with HA would help even more (and then when you take the free city, your water park grants amenity to your new city).

 

[NukeAJS]

I think we've identified that the real issue is normal ages.

Dark ages can be bad, depending. The can be also be good, depending. I'd argue that they should always be a bad thing. You should almost never actually want to be in a dark age.

Golden Ages are obviously, almost always good -- you get the special dedication as well as pushing out lots of loyalty pressure that can flip others cities if -- especially if you know what you're doing (spies, bread and circuses, Amani etc).

Normal ages just make it easier to get more era points -- meh.

To me, it seems the way to rectify this is to make normal ages almost always more desirable than dark ages and golden ages almost always more desirable than normal ages. How to do that while keeping things interesting and fun?

To me, it makes the most sense to keep dark ages and golden ages the same and change normal ages. Since golden ages get increased loyalty pressure and a special dedication, the obvious way to split it is to give normal ages "half" a golden age -- a way to increase loyalty pressure and/or a dedication that does more than just give you a way to get more era points. I think an interesting way to do this would be to give a special wild card or two depending on what dedication you chose. So, if you chose the dedication that gives you era points for spreading your religion, there could be a card that gives increased loyalty pressure to other civs that are following your religion. Or maybe a card that enables religious units to be purchased with gold. One card affects loyalty. One gives you a special ability. Both of them have an opportunity cost of "wasting" a wild card slot. In this case, both of them synergize with the dedication bonus to spread your religion and get era points. This would make it much easier to go from NA -> GA and more difficult to go from DA -> HA (comparatively, at least).

If we wanted to alter dark ages to be "darker," we could also add a negative side-effect to their dedication that matches thematically. For example, the dedication that gives era points for building a district would also have a food penalty every turn whenever a city is producing a district (the idea being that squalor is resulting from poorly managed urban development which was/is a reality concerning development).

tldr -- dark ages should usually be worse than normal ages. Normal ages should usually be worse than golden ages. Game mechanics should reflect that.

 

[tetley]

tldr -- dark ages should usually be worse than normal ages. Normal ages should usually be worse than golden ages. Game mechanics should reflect that.

I don't exactly feel the same, though. Just a simple "more is better" is not as flavorful a strategy as it is "don't get too many era points, but don't get too few, either". Either go under and DA, or go over and GA. Stay out of the middle. Oh and also, don't completely blow out your required GA score, either, unless you want to DA the following era after that. Cool.

There is no hard-and-fast rule saying that the Dark Age has to be truly dark. Firaxis can do whatever they want. From a historical perspective, many religious people don't even think the Dark Age was that dark, anyway. Okay, you had the Inquisition. And then arises Secular Humanism, which we call the "Renaissance". What constitutes "dark" is highly subjective, largely based on your religion. Plus, the game is already removed from historical accuracy anyway, in that the real Dark Age in fact spanned several civilizations at once--not just one--and you had a natural disaster (the plague) bring it on. A natural disaster CAUSING a Dark Age--okay--but we generally include the plague as being part of it. If civ6 had megavolcanoes and asteroids bring on a global Information Era Dark Age (along with a reversal to global warming), I would not be opposed to that.

What I think would be cool is if you could sacrifice Scientists as heretics, as well. Right now, only religious units of other religions are heretics. What about Galileo and Copernicus? Burn them at the stake! Earn faith, lose science. I like my little Temple relic, "Galileo's cloak". Welcome to the Dark Age.

 

[Nefelia]

Had my first-ever Dark Age in my current game. It caught me by surprise, since the Classical Era was unusually short for some reason. I'm still not sure why that was.
I was pumping out ~120 science/turn by the end of the Classical Era. I had Holy Sites in most cities, and Campuses in a few, so I chose Monasticism. I build a few more Campuses and science buildings, and switched my capital to producing Research Grants, and I was up to ~330 science/turn ten or so turns later.
The Medieval Era dragged on longer than I expected, but I didn't mind much. By the time it ended, I was pumping out ~950 science/turn. By that time, Gilgamesh and I were leading science by an era and a half.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Had my first-ever Dark Age in my current game. It caught me by surprise, since the Classical Era was unusually short for some reason.

Usually it lasts for 40 turns, but the minimal number of an era is also 40 turns, so how can that be "unusually short"? Is there a way to let it be less than 40 turns?

 

[Isengardtom]

I really cannot stand the Heroic age brightness. Annoys me no end, glad to be on deity when it happened because it is shorter.

I try to avoid dark ages because they then lead to this brightness I hate that truly gives little.

I actually think this is fun so I would be sad if the remove it. You can always wear sunglasses

Maybe a compromise is better. They could make it an option to turn it on or off or even better choose which one you want to leave it on so those that like it can play with the darker graphics.

 

[Victoria]

play with the darker graphics.

This just took me to many dark places

 

[UWHabs]

I just "suffered" through a dark age, and there were certainly some challenges. I believe it was medieval? Anyways, the challenges I ran into:
-None of the dark age policy cards really helped me. If we still had the overflow bug, I would have killed it chopping boats into wonders, since I also had the World Congress give me half price units for virtually the whole era. But I was also still expanding, and all my trades routes were external, so I never used any of the policy cards
-I had just started a war with the US, and it was going fine, except that I roped in our other neighbour Inca to help, and they ended up taking a couple US cities. Most damaging, I was left with taking a few around the coast, but due to loyalty, I couldn't secure them. So Washington and Boston literally kept flipping back and forth
-I was settling coasts on another landmass, but due to my horrible loyalty pressure, it was a rare time I needed to move governors to them to keep them from flipping. It wasn't until I got a cultural alliance with Greece that they got back to 100% loyalty. Although in retrospect, I probably should have done the cultural alliance with Inca and then I would probably have been able to keep those US cities. As it was, I just let them flip, fought the free city, pillaged, captured them again, and repeated for like 30 turns.If I was more aggressive, I could have gained even more by repairing the improvements and then pillaging again - I only "learned" that near the end of my war.

But yeah, other than some loyalty issues that were pretty bad, the dark age didn't really feel all that dark. I definitely still feel there needs to be a true negative to them. It can be a simple -1 amenity and -2 housing in all your cities, or even something like -50% great people points in the age, or you force people to run at least one dark age policy at all times, or you customize the dedications to have a negative effect. But yeah, while the loyalty issues can definitely hurt, all they did was prevent me from getting ahead (but then again, now that I went heroic the next era, I'm going to go on a murdering rampage to make up for the lack of expansion the previous era).

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I just "suffered" through a dark age, and there were certainly some challenges. I believe it was medieval? Anyways, the challenges I ran into:
-None of the dark age policy cards really helped me. If we still had the overflow bug, I would have killed it chopping boats into wonders, since I also had the World Congress give me half price units for virtually the whole era. But I was also still expanding, and all my trades routes were external, so I never used any of the policy cards
-I had just started a war with the US, and it was going fine, except that I roped in our other neighbour Inca to help, and they ended up taking a couple US cities. Most damaging, I was left with taking a few around the coast, but due to loyalty, I couldn't secure them. So Washington and Boston literally kept flipping back and forth
-I was settling coasts on another landmass, but due to my horrible loyalty pressure, it was a rare time I needed to move governors to them to keep them from flipping. It wasn't until I got a cultural alliance with Greece that they got back to 100% loyalty. Although in retrospect, I probably should have done the cultural alliance with Inca and then I would probably have been able to keep those US cities. As it was, I just let them flip, fought the free city, pillaged, captured them again, and repeated for like 30 turns.If I was more aggressive, I could have gained even more by repairing the improvements and then pillaging again - I only "learned" that near the end of my war.

But yeah, other than some loyalty issues that were pretty bad, the dark age didn't really feel all that dark. I definitely still feel there needs to be a true negative to them. It can be a simple -1 amenity and -2 housing in all your cities, or even something like -50% great people points in the age, or you force people to run at least one dark age policy at all times, or you customize the dedications to have a negative effect. But yeah, while the loyalty issues can definitely hurt, all they did was prevent me from getting ahead (but then again, now that I went heroic the next era, I'm going to go on a murdering rampage to make up for the lack of expansion the previous era).

Try Twilight Valor, this applies to all melee attack units, which means it also applies to anti-cav and cavalries besides melee units.

 

[Victoria]

Try Twilight Valor, this applies to all melee attack units, which means it also applies to anti-cav and cavalries besides melee units.

I am starting to wonder about this when I find horses now.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Dark Ages should be more onerous. In addition to decreased loyalty, I’d want Eurekas and Inspirations to give no extra research towards Technologies or Civics. This’d be offset by increased Era Score for Eurekas and Inspirations.

Moreover, the Dark Age policy cards should be reworked as dedications, so that you’re forced to engage with the specific Dark Age comprises.