Dark and Golden Ages Civ-specific mechanics and bonuses (suggest your own)

[AntSou]

Although I think the addition of Ages is a positive one, after several play-throughs my opinion is that Ages feel very gimmicky and uninspired.

I believe Firaxis is wasting an opportunity here to further enhance the game's replayability and that the game could benefit a lot from Dark and Golden Age effects that are unique to each Civilisation.
---
I'd like this thread to be used to discuss and share ideas about Dark and Golden Age penalties and benefits, as well as unique policies for each individual Civilisation (or Leader?), as an alternative to the rather bland approach the game takes atm.

If you can make it so the dark and golden ages fit with one another and with the remaining Civ traits, so much the better.
---

I'll start:

France
Golden Age - All Heavy Cavalry units trained during a Golden Age, including existing ones, gain a free promotion. (The same unit may gain free promotions from different Golden Ages.)

Dark Age - Heavy Cavalry maintenance doubled.


Germany (Barbarossa)
Golden Age - Gain Frederick Barbarossa Great General for the duration of the Golden Age. Passive Ability: +7 Strength +1 Movement to units within 3 tiles of the current, preceding and following era. Provides + 8 Loyalty to your Cities within 6 tiles.

Dark Age - Gain Frederick Barbarossa Support Unit for the duration of the Dark Age. Passive Ability: +3 Strength to all adjacent units. Bonus stack-able with Great Generals. -50% Growth -8 Loyalty to every previously conquered city-state in your Empire for each turn Barbarossa spends within your empire's borders. Gain Empire wide Loyalty for every enemy unit killed within 4 tiles of Barbarossa. Barbarossa loses 20HP each time he embarks. Barbarossa may not heal or be healed. If Barbarossa unit is killed, all governors are neutralised for 7 turns, partisans arise near previously conquered city states and 1/3 of your army disbands, at random.


Rome
Golden Age - Legions and Melee Units maintenance halved when outside empire's borders.
Golden Age Policy - Legions 20% cheaper to produce and receive one extra charge. Garrisoned Melee units provide +4 Loyalty.
Golden Age - Roman Forts built within or adjacent to your empire's borders act as culture bombs (may only annex unclaimed tiles).

Dark Age - Governors in Cities 9 or more tiles away from the Capital provide no loyalty bonuses.
Dark Age - Legions and Melee Units maintenance doubled (unless garrisoned).
Dark Age - Defensive Structures in Cities 9 or more tiles away from the Capital are capped at half its max health value for the duration of the Dark Age.
Dark Age - Cities 9 or more tiles away from the Capital gain no population growth bonuses, but may suffer penalties as usual.
____

You get the gist. Don't worry about sounding exaggerated. We can work on that later!

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I feel like these should be civ- and not leader-specific, given that they thematically would attempt to cover the high and low points of the civ as a whole. So I would not, for example, make a civ-specific Golden/Dark Age bonus around Barbarossa.

Another issue I see is that we are already struggling to find unique mechanical identities for new civs in VI. There really aren't many things you can theme around golden or dark ages without civs starting to feel the same. For example, the Golden Era: Military Bonus, Science Bonus, Culture Bonus, Production Bonus, Resource/Terrain Bonus. There's also the issue of how much these would either dilute the identity of a civ by being too mechanically separated from its strengths, make them overpowered synergizing with its strengths, or elsewise be redundant.

And, finally, deciding specific Dark Age maluses just doesn't jive with VI's Disney happy atmosphere. While I don't think anyone would complain about France's dark age maluses, it would be incredibly easy for, say, Korea's or Kongo's maluses to stray into borderline racism or at the very least cultural insensitivity (which as we've seen with the Cree, the Mapuche, Tamar, Seondeok, etc. is already hard enough to completely avoid even with the best intentions). So we're not only balancing mechanics, but also politics here, and that is a tall order to fill. Whereas granting general Dark Age maluses like we have now completely avoids political incorrectness.

Idunno, when I saw this thread I was really excited by the idea, but the more I think about it the more problems keep surfacing. Sounds like an awful lot of work, when it would probably be overall better for gameplay to develop more Golden Age and Dark Age dedications/policies to give all players more options. Sorry.

 

[steveg700]

Well, I don't want civ-specific dedications so much as I want civ-specifc historic moments that earn GA points. In essence, missions.

 

[AntSou]

@PhoenicianGold

You make a good point. So we agree that the Ages mechanic as it exists atm is a bit bland, right?

I still think that, at least in regards to Golden Ages, having Civ-specific bonuses would be pretty fun. Essentially a second unique ability to each Civ which is locked rather than permanent.

(Furthermore, if civ-specific Golden Ages were in the game, then I suspect it would be much easier for modders to create an identical mechanic for Dark Ages, circumventing the whole politics issue, leaving it up to the sensibilities of modders and players.)

But even if nothing of this happens, I seriously hope they expand on the dedications/policies options, as you mentioned.

---

@steveg700

I really don't like this, but maybe I'm just not picturing it right. I think these work great in EU4 where you're creating an alternative history while still locked into many world events.

But I think there's a balance in Civ between, on the one hand, giving a Civ bonuses to reinforce their identity, and on the other, going overboard with it to the extent you're almost forced into a certain path. If you have Civ-specific missions, there's a much higher chance of every game with that Civ becoming the same, since you'll strive for the same accomplishments each time.

Of course, this already happens to an extent, but that's my point. I want Civs to encourage a certain playstyle, not force you into one. Abilities are bonuses BEFORE the fact, whereas missions would give points AFTER the fact. So the former suggests, whereas the latter directs.

Edit: On second thought, I think I would like SOME missions. Maybe one per Civ which gives a boost of +8 Age points, or maybe two missions, each giving a +4 boost, for instance. This would make it easier for that Civ to achieve a Golden Age in the period they were most likely to do so.

You already get bonuses from unique units and buildings, which already make you more likely to achieve a Golden Age in specific Eras, so there's a danger of going overboard with this. I would reduce the bonuses from creating unique units/buildings to +3. I think it's +4 atm.
---

I would also very much appreciate an option to disable Heroic Ages altogether when creating a new game. They sound great in theory, but in practice I find these favour the Human Player way too much. It's too easy to cheese your way into a Heroic Age by forcing a Dark Age in the Classic Era.

I would rather have more diverse Dark Age policies, with powerful double-edged effects.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Well, I don't want civ-specific dedications so much as I want civ-specifc historic moments that earn GA points. In essence, missions.

I'm guessing you mean Era Score and not Great Admiral points. A while back I suggested something similar for Diplomatic Score points.

I would rather have more diverse Dark Age policies, with powerful double-edged effects.

I think if you took your OP suggestions and paired them up they would make good Dark or Heroic Age cards that anyone could access.

I think that Disasters should increase in frequency and severity in Dark Ages but that's a different topic.

 

[AntSou]

I think that Disasters should increase in frequency and severity in Dark Ages but that's a different topic.

But how would that work? The disasters are world events whereas Dark Ages are attached to individual civs. Besides, isn't that looking at the issue the wrong way around?

What I mean is, if we were to get more disaster types (tsunamis, wildfires, farm exhaustion, etc), the chance to increase the percentage of submersible tiles, maybe even a new level of disaster intensity, stuff like that, then the Civs affected the most by those disasters would be more likely to enter Dark Ages.

 

[The googles do nothing]

But how would that work? The disasters are world events whereas Dark Ages are attached to individual civs. Besides, isn't that looking at the issue the wrong way around?

The tiles of a Civ in a dark age would have an increased chance of Droughts and less or no fertilization from the other disasters. Yes it is the wrong way around as a IRL a Dark Ages have ofter followed disasters. But as a game it's better you want the player's actions to control the game and not RNG.

 

[steveg700]

I really don't like this, but maybe I'm just not picturing it right. I think these work great in EU4 where you're creating an alternative history while still locked into many world events.

But I think there's a balance in Civ between, on the one hand, giving a Civ bonuses to reinforce their identity, and on the other, going overboard with it to the extent you're almost forced into a certain path. If you have Civ-specific missions, there's a much higher chance of every game with that Civ becoming the same, since you'll strive for the same accomplishments each time.

Of course, this already happens to an extent, but that's my point. I want Civs to encourage a certain playstyle, not force you into one. Abilities are bonuses BEFORE the fact, whereas missions would give points AFTER the fact. So the former suggests, whereas the latter directs.

Edit: On second thought, I think I would like SOME missions. Maybe one per Civ which gives a boost of +8 Age points, or maybe two missions, each giving a +4 boost, for instance. This would make it easier for that Civ to achieve a Golden Age in the period they were most likely to do so.

You already get bonuses from unique units and buildings, which already make you more likely to achieve a Golden Age in specific Eras, so there's a danger of going overboard with this. I would reduce the bonuses from creating unique units/buildings to +3. I think it's +4 atm.
---

I would also very much appreciate an option to disable Heroic Ages altogether when creating a new game. They sound great in theory, but in practice I find these favour the Human Player way too much. It's too easy to cheese your way into a Heroic Age by forcing a Dark Age in the Classic Era.

You express a legitimate concern. Personally, I feel that providing civ's a suite of unique assets and agendas is certainly stepping away from Civ's alt-history roots. I was thinking that such civ-unique missions would simply compliment the existing agendas, and would perhaps have the benefit of helping the AI civ better compete in achieving better ages.

Heroic ages should just be tamped down to two dedications.

 

[oSiyeza]

You express a legitimate concern. Personally, I feel that providing civ's a suite of unique assets and agendas is certainly stepping away from Civ's alt-history roots. I was thinking that such civ-unique missions would simply compliment the existing agendas, and would perhaps have the benefit of helping the AI civ better compete in achieving better ages.

Heroic ages should just be tamped down to two dedications.

Instead of having specific effects per civ, a better easieroption would be to have a poll of malus for dark ages, so you would get randomly one of them, or maybe select one from two random options. Also this feature should be optional, as you know people is sensitive and all.

Some examples would be:

10% less science
15% less income
+1 unit manteinance
No great people can be obtained
-1 movement for naval units
-5 attack strenght in all land units
Units do not gain experience
-50% effect of eurekas
-5 Religious strenght in all religious units
-50% on all resources from trade routes
Reduced ammenities in all cities
-50% strenght in city walls
Big citties lose 1 population each 10 turns
-50% charges in builders (-1 if you have 3, -2 if you have 4)
+10% increassed cost in all buildings
Units heal 25% slower
-1 Food in yields with more than 1 food


And so on. I dont like that most effects of the game are so narrow that you can ignore them. A dark age should be something you really dont want to get. And that changes the way you can play. Also something that is not the same every time, and needs to be balanced so all civs have similar effects. And also reflect the dark times a civilization can suffer. You should be happy when avoidind or getting out of a dark age. Not want it.

Yes, those effects are hard, but that is the point.

Also Golden ages can probably stay the way they are. They only suck now cause dark ages are often better.

 

[AntSou]

Instead of having specific effects per civ, a better easieroption would be to have a poll of malus for dark ages, so you would get randomly one of them, or maybe select one from two random options.

I don't think I like that. It feels a bit dull to get random modifiers. However, what about if the modifiers you suggested are linked to under performance in certain areas?

E.g. The Civ with the least amount of techs among those who have entered a Dark Age, gets a -15% Science penalty during the next age. So you know in advance that you'll get penalised for the things you're overlooking if you end up in a Dark Age. But along with that penalty, you'd get a specific policy which helps combat that specific penalty. E.g. Monasticism: +75% Science in Cities with Holy Sites, but -25% Culture in all cities.

Each Civ in a Dark Age would get 1 penalty. The Civ with the least Era points would get two Penalties. Everybody wants to avoid that last spot, like a game of musical chairs.
---

Such modifier penalties would actually make sense. E.g. If you consistently have a small army, that means you don't have a military tradition. If you then enter a Dark Age with the smallest army, the maintenance of your troops goes up by 1. It simulates inefficiency. The less you do of something, the worse you get at it.

 

[oSiyeza]

I don't think I like that. It feels a bit dull to get random modifiers. However, what about if the modifiers you suggested are linked to under performance in certain areas?

E.g. The Civ with the least amount of techs among those who have entered a Dark Age, gets a -15% Science penalty during the next age. So you know in advance that you'll get penalised for the things you're overlooking if you end up in a Dark Age. But along with that penalty, you'd get a specific policy which helps combat that specific penalty. E.g. Monasticism: +75% Science in Cities with Holy Sites, but -25% Culture in all cities.

Each Civ in a Dark Age would get 1 penalty. The Civ with the least Era points would get two Penalties. Everybody wants to avoid that last spot, like a game of musical chairs.
---

Such modifier penalties would actually make sense. E.g. If you consistently have a small army, that means you don't have a military tradition. If you then enter a Dark Age with the smallest army, the maintenance of your troops goes up by 1. It simulates inefficiency. The less you do of something, the worse you get at it.

Im unsure for a couple of reasons, first if you are falling back in science, then getting in a dark age will cripple your chances of recovery, and in other fields if you are not caring for an army, the dark age would give you even bigger reasons to care less.

Maybe the random poll is not ideal, but is easy to implement, adds uncertainty, and In practise I think it may wok, as for example the X-Com chosen traits, adding a lot of variability to the game.

However, I could even see, that the opposite of your idea may work even better. If you (or other civ) is overinvesting in religion or science, punishing those factors in a dark age would add balance, a chance of other civs to catch you, and will punish you in the places where you used to be strong. This would be even more accurate to history. If a civilization was increasing too much in population, diseases appeared. Cyclic crisis appear in economy when inflation gets too high. This also happened with the arabic civilization regarding science (One that they still not recovered from). The fall of overexpansionistic military empires when they could not support their gigantic infraestructure anymore. The more I think about it, the more I think this is a better choice.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Sure! Monsters! Not only monsters, both sea and land (Huge Alligators? Any? Boas? Any? Spiders, death valley?)
but more defence, moats!!!!!!!!!!

4UPT can solve so many problems, you are not gonna get replaylability if the 1UPT is not being kicked off this game.

 

[steveg700]

Yes, those effects are hard, but that is the point.

Well, the thing that needs to be realized is that the intended point of dark ages is not to penalize a player by pushing them into a downward spiral. The misconception a lot of folks have about dark ages is thinking of them as a punishment for failing to achieve historic moments. Historic moments are a byproduct of accomplishing things that are advantageous, so if you fell into a dark age, the assumption is that you're already falling behind in some key areas.

The intention is for a dark age to provide a catch-up mechanism through both the dark age policies and the possibility for a heroic age.

Now a random malus would be nothing to some civ's and crippling to others, so that's less than ideal. I would be okay with the dark age dedications including some kind of malus in the dedication bonus, with the key being that the civ gets to pick their poison.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Dark age is pure isolation

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Also Golden ages can probably stay the way they are. They only suck now cause dark ages are often better.

How? Because of minor policies? You loose loyalty during the dark ages, so you can't go conquest and have a dark age at the same time...
A Dark age is about the will to isolate. It was a deliberate choice.

Some playstyle may actually benefit, like hit and run, pillage boosts while building up a huge army, but then it ends magically because of achievements....

Chinese mapping the globe set the end of dark ages in all Europe, you don't get to choose or influence other's "Ages" normally or in Hystory, they are all the same for everyone, except someone plays more isolation than others. It maybe off-topic but the whole Ages concept is wrong in the game.

 

[steveg700]

How? Because of minor policies? You loose loyalty during the dark ages, so you can't go conquest and have a dark age at the same time...

Well, I'm not a huge warmonger myself, but there are certainly a lot of folks who beg to differ. Loyalty pressure be countered in a lot of ways, none surer than just conquering in a strategic fashion, blitzing weak cities faster than pressure can take its toll. And of course, other civ's can have dark ages too. Fight them.

 

[oSiyeza]

How? Because of minor policies? You loose loyalty during the dark ages, so you can't go conquest and have a dark age at the same time...
A Dark age is about the will to isolate. It was a deliberate choice.

Some playstyle may actually benefit, like hit and run, pillage boosts while building up a huge army, but then it ends magically because of achievements....

Chinese mapping the globe set the end of dark ages in all Europe, you don't get to choose or influence other's "Ages" normally or in Hystory, they are all the same for everyone, except someone plays more isolation than others. It maybe off-topic but the whole Ages concept is wrong in the game.

Yes the current dark ages benefits some players. But this is clearly against the design of the system. Dark ages, are supposed to mean exactly that, a period of decadence in your empire.

That is the main theme of rise and fall, and the main idea behind the system was explained by Firaxis on numerous occasions. The only reward for a dark age was supposed to be the chance of an heroic one.

That said, the problem with the system, as with many other aspects of the game. Is that firaxis has been very reluctant to add anything that adds any difficulty, or malus effect on any player. AIs never attempt domination victories and even been hit by a volcano has possitive effects in order not to frustrate a over sensitive player.

This is the major problem with civ, most challenge has been removed from the game. I totally unnderstand making features optional, I think that many difficulty settings should be. But the current situation is kind of ridiculous. The major intenction in my suggestion is to bring back the original design idea of rise and fall, to a game that desperately needs to add some challenge to the game.

That said I do not want difficulty for difficulty sake, or an unfair system that only elite players can enjoy. Or even make dark ages unfun, or unrewarding. Just to add some real significance to a game system most players dont care about, or use in the opposite direction to the one is clearly inttended to.

 

[oSiyeza]

Well, the thing that needs to be realized is that the intended point of dark ages is not to penalize a player by pushing them into a downward spiral. The misconception a lot of folks have about dark ages is thinking of them as a punishment for failing to achieve historic moments. Historic moments are a byproduct of accomplishing things that are advantageous, so if you fell into a dark age, the assumption is that you're already falling behind in some key areas.

The intention is for a dark age to provide a catch-up mechanism through both the dark age policies and the possibility for a heroic age.

Now a random malus would be nothing to some civ's and crippling to others, so that's less than ideal. I would be okay with the dark age dedications including some kind of malus in the dedication bonus, with the key being that the civ gets to pick their poison.

If you read my suggestion, my point is not to cripple the player in the areas they fall behind.

Pretty much the opposite. The point is to simulate a decadence period on your empire, not punishing but challenging the player after an exhacerbated period of expansion. As a dark age has nothing to do with how well you are doing, and by design most of the time will happen after a golden age.

Dark ages are a natural cycle of empires, and that is the idea in rise and fall. Still they have their in game rewards, as when fought hard and overcomed can give you big rewards in an heroic age. However in the game they mean not much, and are even actively prefered over normal ages by many players.

My proposal wanted to bring back what a dark age should be, as stated by Firaxis themselves. But hey I get it. Not all players want to be challenged in any way. So i also propose that all dificulty related systems should be optional in the settings.

However is also quite sad, that because a fraction of the players are reluctant to be challenged in any way (not saying is your case), all game systems need to be rewards. And I'm not a deity player, a minmaxer or anything close to. But honesty, a game where there is no competition, no challenge and nothing to overcome is no fun for me. And I think this opinion is also the one of the majority of the long term players.

 

[oSiyeza]

Sure! Monsters! Not only monsters, both sea and land (Huge Alligators? Any? Boas? Any? Spiders, death valley?)
but more defence, moats!!!!!!!!!!

4UPT can solve so many problems, you are not gonna get replaylability if the 1UPT is not being kicked off this game.

Get the wildlife mod! They are already in the game and they are fantastic. We have even a kraken lurking in the deep!

 

[Lazy sweeper]

This is the major problem with the game, most challenge has been removed from the game. I totally unnderstand making features optional, I think that many difficulty settings should be. But the current situation is kind of ridiculous. The major intenction in my suggestion is to bring back the original design idea of rise and fall, to a gama that desperately needs to add some challenge to the game.

Absolutely, that is why I strongly advocate for a Complete Kill toggle in the Main menu, accellerated production, to which other could be added, MUST be added.
1UPT or 4 UPT? What is your playstyle? Wildlife mod> Splendid, but imagine it was part of the game, play with Maya or Peru, Brazil, and your Amazon Basin is littered with Stealthy raptors, at one time you may want to play easy. Options! Vulcano and other Disaster can Kill units? Vulcano can raze cities completely?
Instead when a choice is made it's mandative, like a dictatorship of the monocode. Flooding was cool, now it's useless. Play difficulties should include such catastrophic events in account, we have catastrophic rate, while the fun part to drown your island opponent has been taken out with no options... how wonderful...