Dark Ages

I was thinking that in order to balance in terms of fun and gameplay a golgen age , a DARK AGE(or with some other name that would avoid the european connotation) could be added in the game:
A Dark Age could be triggered by:
the case that the research slider is at zero for a long period of turns,
by the destruction of an enemy city that contains a Great wonder, or the loss of our city with a great scientific wonder
the loss of a great leader, or of 2(?)armies in one turn
excessive use of nukes.
all triggers should have low probability so that only a combination would make the occurence of the age very likely
The main carachteristics would be:
a loss in trade, production and food,
the inability to produce anything but military units(that can not be upgraded during the dark age) or military units of a specific kind(like pillagers)
a higher instance of disease and pollution
a rise in upkeep costs except for the military

Dark Age could last from 5-10 turns and it could also have specific charachteristics depending on the civ traits as Ybbor proposes http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84785

see also:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=89119
 
dark ages are a subjective experience by the people whom states were overrun by migrating people and nomads. Many of their cultural, scientific and social achievements were destroyed and disappeared for years because the conquerors couldn't appreciate them. The occupied people had to live under much worse conditions than before. In some cases the different people mixed or one of them was assimilated by the other and often new states came into existence.
I think you are referring to the european experience...i f you go through the previous posts you will see lots of arguments on that
Probably i shoudn't use the term in the first place in order to avoid controversy...think of a more universal condition...where progress seems to slow down Rammstein earlier proposed Silly Age but I think he's too much into early Monty Pythons to be trusted...lol
 
I got it
like in the mongolian invasion when the mongols entered Beijing and were gradually integrated to the chinese culture.
I think it is a good idea, but how?
 
Playing the game drunk might result in a dark age for the civs.
 
The nomads or migrating people should have many settlers and workers and many units, all of good quality with some extra abilities plus three Armies each followed by the settlers and workers

In single player:
e. g. you are A, B invades
- you, A, destroy one or more Armies and capture automatically the settlers and workers. Then these should be automatically integrated in your cities, even if they couln't grow under normal circumstances. You will now have to deal with this increased population.
- if you loose all cities or capitulate unsolicited you can't get any more victory points but can choose to continue with the "invaders" and your remaining people, but under the name of their nation

In multiplayer:
- you can't continue if defeated
- the invading nation can be a new player starting in an already running game

for this i'd love it, if the unhappiness and corruption will grow so strong if an empire get's too big that it finally comes to empire division and civil war if one countinues to expand, because you as regent can't be omnipresent. one should be able to choose the side, but from then on there will be a new nation. Peace between the two sides would be the only solution, because the whole empire would be as unmanageble as before. Only a short war for some important border cities if any, would take place.

i would also like to see maps where the civs can't populate every corner and some landscapes remain therefore empty.
 
I think that is a set of useful ideas that would make for interesting gameplay if the particulars are sorted out (eg how do you solve the AI tendency to settle on the spot?)
Why dont you start a new thread?
 
the invading nation should have enough settlers and workers for building an nation of the average size in population points of existing nations. if there is enough space they should settle and defend it, but they could still have enough units to expand.
 
I'm still a fan of starting a dark age in a rival nation using a great leader, or two great leaders. (You and another continental enemy need to have two great leaders hit each other -- implying a LOT of trust and cooperation. Or you send one great leader directly into their capital city right upon capture.)

Dark age would lead to decreased productivity and increased corruption, it would prevent certain kinds of progress (building stuff, researching stuff), and I personally think it should make the civilization vulnerable to anarchy or even a civil war should the empire be large and disjointed enough.

This way the dark age is not something that just happens randomly, but is a strategy that other nations play for. Afterall, if you have even two sets of barbarians cooperating, they could topple the roman empire for an era... only to re-emerge on a level playing field 500 years later.

But hey, that's just me.
 
I still prefer a random event...really I dont trust the AI and the co-operation between AI for such a specific target would require a much more "clever" AI
For that I would give up on any other idea...lol..
 
@Aussie_Lurker
I dont think that you shoul lose technologies during a D.A.
Historically (I'm using the term D.A. as a convention,because it's a european concept)Dark ages were periods of cultural and technological stagnation,compared retrospectively to periods of greater progress. What I had in mind is a combination of events(greater barb activity)with a general slowing down of economy, research and culture...
 
Garbarsardar.jr said:
I still prefer a random event...really I dont trust the AI and the co-operation between AI for such a specific target would require a much more "clever" AI
For that I would give up on any other idea...lol..

Yeah, if you're uncomfortable with the idea of pushing two great leaders together, particularly in the hands of the computer AI... I still wouldn't want an ENTIRELY random event. It would take place probabilistically, with the likelihood increasing for...

- larger empires
- losing more than a city in a turn
- some other stuff i can't think of (boy I'm tired)

I also think dark age should only work in such a way that evens the playing field, not slowing a nation down so someone else can overtake it. As such, I think a dark age should affect an entire continent to some degree, with lesser effects for smaller or weaker empires so they can move forward.

And, of course, a dark age should not be guaranteed to happen every game. (According to history, your odds would probably be something like 1/3)
 
When ever some one has mentioned a Dark Age (or equivalent), I've always thought of it as the opposite to a Golden Age. I disagree with dh_epic's idea that it should affect an entire continent (islands: would it just affect the one?) though, as it a GA is just for that civ. There definatly would need to be a link between DAs and Civil Wars - either adding to the likelyhood of the other being triggered. It shouldn't be completely random, but include triggers that aren't player controlled, like invasions and natural disasters.
 
yes yes a thousand times yes! great ideas. However I don't think a "dark age" per se but simply loss of tech (even multiple techs) should be possible.

Pre-modern civilizations devoted very little (if any) resources to technological development, it just happened. So until a civ can develop the factory, technology should advance at a low fixed rate that barely allows advances. You can adjust luxuries and production but that's it. So the loss of a tech would be a BIG deal.

In any civilization there is a point of no return where a declining economy and or military defeat will trigger a dark age (Roman Empire 1500 years ago, Muslim Empire 500 years ago). In modern times, imagine pollution that is allowed to accumulate out of control. Or, Anarchy causing improvement destruction that goes on too long (Great Library was destroyed) There cuold be many reasons to cause it.

The developement first of the printing press, and later the computer, could reduce the chance of a loss of tech. So ancient dark ages might be more common then modern dark ages, they would not be impossible. (A few well-placed nukes could well instigate a new dark age, at least for a while).

"Militaristic" AI civs need to be more aggressive and since they are likely to have lower tech levels they could cause a dark age to begin.

If a tech was recently acquired from another civ which was destroyed there is a chance of a loss of that tech (before it becomes established in the economy).

And I liked the old Civ2 rule where you could gain a tech by conquest.

In other words, real progress is not the boring, slow, steady forward advance that it often is, but goes in fits and starts with backward leaps as well as forward.

mac

Aussie_Lurker said:
Well, I think they should be brought BACK, along with barabrian uprisings.
I think that it should be a 'Random Event' similar to plagues, with parameters that can be set within the editor (but with certain 'default settings') I also think that a civ should be only able to suffer, AT MOST, one Dark Age in a game-and it would have to happen only under fairly extreme cicumstances-like the loss of your Capital, or the loss of a LARGE portion of your empire to foreign tribes/Barbarians.
Having certain improvements and/or Social Engineering traits could increase/decrease your chance of falling into a Dark Age, and being near a civ that has fallen into a dark age might give you a VERY small chance of falling into one yourself.
The effect I could see for a dark age is the loss of X% of your total techs for that age ONLY! In addition, your research and production output drops by X%. The X would be related to the 'Strength' of the dark age-similar to the strength of a plague. The stronger the dark age, though, the shorter its length-and vice versa!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
If Barbarians could capture cities then develop into civilizations after a period of time this would simulate a "dark age". In game, Rome gets overrun by Magyars and Visigoths, the two then become civilizations that start out with say half of the conquered civ's technology. Then the dark age would be those new civs trying to catch up with others. This would also simulate the Byzantines keeping all their knowledge... they fought off the barbarians, thus no "dark age" for their peoples.
 
The Greeks had built a great Civ from 2100 BC to 1200BC, then they entered a Dark Age that lastest 400 years, then their Civ picked up and thrieved for another 800 years.

The "Greeks" of the Mycenian and Minoian civs arn't the classical Greeks (their ancestors were the ones that over ran and destroyed those two civs).

It would be like calling the British before the Anglo-Saxon and Norse invasions English.

Muslim Empire 500 years ago

Muslim Empire?

Plz be correct and call it the Ottoman Empire.
 
Chauliodus said:
Muslim Empire?

Plz be correct and call it the Ottoman Empire.

Perhaps he was refering to the Arab Empire:
Arabs 632 - 16th century C.E.

It is known that Semitic-speaking peoples inhabited the Arabian peninsula as early as 3500 B.C.E. For thousands of years, several kingdoms ruled in Arabia, primarily in the higher, watered areas of southwest Arabia. During this period trade flourished, a system of writing was developed, and both Judaism and Christianity were introduced into the region.

The most significant event in the history of Arabia was the rise of Islam. The founder of this religion was Muhammad, who was born in Mecca about 570 C.E. and died in Medina in 632 C.E. The followers of Muhammad called themselves Muslims, meaning "those who have given themselves to the will of God." Mecca became the spiritual center of Islam, and Medina became the political center of a united Muslim state. Under the caliphs (the successors to Muhammad) Arab armies first conquered Syria, Egypt, and Persia, and finally swept over the whole of northern Africa and into the Iberian peninsula. Eventually the caliphate was moved to Damascus in 658 and finally to Baghdad in 751.

Apart from their military skills, the Arabs had a great respect for art and learning. The Baghdad University, established around 800 C.E., was known throughout Europe and the East, and was particularly famous for architecture, astronomy, medicine, and mathematics. The system of numbers we use today was brought to Europe by the Arabs.

The vast lands that the Arabs conquered did not remain part of a single empire for long. Rival caliphates were set up in Egypt and Spain, and in the thirteenth century the Baghdad caliphate was overthrown by the Mongols. In the eleventh century Christian countries in Europe began a series of invasions known as the Crusades. Although these Christian armies were eventually defeated and expelled, the Crusades did have the positive effect of increasing trade between Europe and the Arabs.

In the fifteenth century a new power arose in the area, the Ottoman Turks. Within a hundred years nearly all of the Arabic people had become subjects of the Ottoman Empire.


References:

1. Microsoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, Microsoft.

2. Time-Frame AD 600-800, The March of Islam, Time-Life Books, 1988.

3. Hourani, Albert, A History of the Arab Peoples, Harvard University Press, 1991.


Suggested Reading:

1. Armstrong, Karen, Muhammad - A Biography of the Prophet, Harper Collins, 1992.

and not the Ottoman Turks:


Ottoman Turks 13th - 20th Century C.E.


The Ottoman Turks, also known as the Osmanlis, started as a small Anatolian Amirate which was founded in the late 13th century by Osman, leader of a minor group of Turks from Central Asia. The Osmanlis fled the Mongol hordes, leaving Turkestan and heading to Asia Minor. When they fought the Christians of the Byzantine Empire in about 1300 C.E., they began to attract support from other Muslim groups. They extended their control to include all of Asia Minor and part of the Balkans. They demanded an annual tribute of Christian children from their European subjects. The children were trained to become one of the most powerful armies in Europe - the janissaries. The Turks also discovered the use of firearms and artillery. The Empire grew rapidly, despite severe losses to Tamerlane. When the Sultan Mohammed II became ruler in 1451, he sat on the throne of a powerful empire extending to east and west of the city of Constantinople. He led his people as they extinguished the remnants of the Byzantine state (as well as the last vestiges of the Roman Empire) - claiming the Byzantine city of Constantinople as their own, and renaming it Istanbul in 1453. During the 16th century, the Ottoman empire extended as far as Egypt, Syria, the Balkans and Hungary. They even attacked Vienna unsuccessfully in both 1529 and 1683.

One of the greatest of the Ottoman leaders was Suleiman, who was only 26 when he gained the throne. Known as Suleiman the Magnificent and Suleiman the Just, he reigned for 46 years. Suleiman was aided by his favorite wife, Roxelana, who acted as one of the sultan's advisors. After Suleiman's death, the Empire began a long, slow decline - they lost Hungary to Austria during the Great Turkish War, and later fought Russia. During the early 19th century, Greece and Egypt broke away from the Empire. Finally, treaties following World War I dissolved the Empire entirely.


References:

1. Monarchs Rulers Dynasties and Kingdoms of the World, compiled by R.F. Tapsell, 1983, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London.

2. Microsoft Encarta 96, Microsoft Corporation, 1996.

3. TimeFrame AD 1300-1400, The Age Of Calamity, Time-Life Books, 1989.
 
Apart from forgetting technologies everything that has been suggested as being symptoms of a Dark Age are in fact already part of the game- periods of stagnation, invasion, starvation- who hasn't had their civ peter out and die in this way? The effects of forgetting techonologies are just the same as having technologically advanced neighbours kick your butt. Also, connecting dark ages with periodic massive barbarian invasions brings us back to the same argument, should barbarians be able to occupy cities and develop? The game already allows for less developed civs to overrun more advanced civs- the so-called dark age in Britian might as well be understood as a saxon golden age. I reckon if you want more dark ages, just play a higher level.
 
Back
Top Bottom