Darker Dark Ages

[Jkchart]

Possibly. I was thinking that the golden age policy cards could replace the dedications since you don't really need both. In fact, some of the dedications could easily be converted into policy cards. But if you don't get extra slots, then you are basically just replacing a standard wildcard policy with a golden age policy. You are losing the bonus from whichever wildcard policy you were using but gaining a nice bonus from a golden age policy. depending on how good the golden age policies are, that won't necessarily be a big advantage. You might just be trading one nice bonus for a different nice bonus.

Also, the reason I want golden ages to be a bit stronger is to provide a better catch up mechanisms if dark ages are going to be more punitive. So maybe golden ages would not give you an extra slot but heroic ages would give 1 extra wild card slot for a golden age policy. That way, a regular golden age would not be quite as strong but heroic ages would be to help the player who just suffered from a dark age. If a dark age reduces your loyalty and your science output (per my previous post) and you lose a wildcard slot and have to use a dark age policy with a malus, then I think it is only fair that when a player gets out of it and hits a heroic age that they get 1 extra wild slot and 2 golden age policies.

I like that as an added bonus for Heroic Ages. That’s good. Those SHOULD be epic after pulling yourself from the brink of disaster. I wouldn’t mind that, even though I (of course, personally, so no offense at all because I really like hearing your ideas!) believe Heroic Ages are powerful enough. But an added Wild card slot and some “Heroic” policies? Those would be okay probably.

 

[Jkchart]

The more I think about it, maybe having policy cards for dark ages and golden ages is too messy. Since the game already has dedications for dark ages and golden ages, maybe the simplest thing to do is to just adjust what they do. Move the dark age policies to the dark age "dedications" and add some negatives to the dark age dedications so that players would have to pick their poison so to speak when they enter a dark age. And going back to my original idea, you could give the player a -10% science as a default penalty for a dark age. The science penalty and the dedication negative would be more than enough to make dark ages hurt more. Then you could always tweak the golden age dedications to make them nicer to reward players who get out of a dark age but otherwise keep the system of picking dedications the same.

I don’t like the flat penalty because Science is so important and there’s absolutely no control over that. A Dark age shouldn’t have to be tied to Science alone. It could relate to your military, or your culture, or even your religion and economy. The Great Depression could be considered a kind of Dark Age, but it had everything to do with the economy. That’s kind of why I went with the policies, to “choose” your kind of Dark age like you’re telling the story, and you use that choice to recover at a cost.

I think Dark age policies shouldn’t be built into the dedications and I find the dedications filling their functions appropriately (a means in non-Golden ages to gain era Score). It would be okay IMO for dark ages to work a bit differently by utilizing these policies better and integrating the more. As of now, they’re an optional sideshow that I don’t really find particularly attractive, and Dark Ages should be less attractive, but not necessarily only because of a Science penalty.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don’t like the flat penalty because Science is so important and there’s absolutely no control over that. A Dark age shouldn’t have to be tied to Science alone. It could relate to your military, or your culture, or even your religion and economy. The Great Depression could be considered a kind of Dark Age, but it had everything to do with the economy. That’s kind of why I went with the policies, to “choose” your kind of Dark age like you’re telling the story, and you use that choice to recover at a cost.

I think Dark age policies shouldn’t be built into the dedications and I find the dedications filling their functions appropriately (a means in non-Golden ages to gain era Score). It would be okay IMO for dark ages to work a bit differently by utilizing these policies better and integrating the more. As of now, they’re an optional sideshow that I don’t really find particularly attractive, and Dark Ages should be less attractive, but not necessarily only because of a Science penalty.

Maybe the government screen could just add an extra row below the wildcard slots just for golden age and dark age policies? That way, you are not messing around with removing or adding extra wild card slots which could be messy, especially since the game already has wonders that add extra slots.

So you can keep dedications but just have 1 "Age" slot below the wild card slots that can only take golden age or dark age policy cards . In a dark age, you would need to fill that 1 "Age" slot with a dark age policy. In a Golden Age and Heroic Age, you would need to fill that 1 "Age" slot with a golden age policy. Heroic Ages could still just have 1 golden age policy slot since you also pick 3 dedications.

 

[Jkchart]

Maybe the government screen could just add an extra row below the wildcard slots just for golden age and dark age policies? That way, you are not messing around with removing or adding extra wild card slots which could be messy, especially since the game already has wonders that add extra slots.

So you can keep dedications but just have 1 "Age" slot below the wild card slots that can only take golden age or dark age policy cards . In a dark age, you would need to fill that 1 "Age" slot with a dark age policy. In a Golden Age and Heroic Age, you would need to fill that 1 "Age" slot with a golden age policy. Heroic Ages could still just have 1 golden age policy slot since you also pick 3 dedications.

Could be a happier medium than replacing a wildcard. Thanks for the brainstorming! An “age” slot could be very beneficial.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I do think that at a minimum, the player should be required to use a dark age policy when they are in a dark age. It only makes sense. Plus, it seems a bit weird to create dark age policy cards but make them optional for the player.

 

[Jkchart]

I do think that at a minimum, the player should be required to use a dark age policy when they are in a dark age. It only makes sense. Plus, it seems a bit weird to create dark age policy cards but make them optional for the player.

Agreed. Why choose to penalize myself when otherwise, despite a tad bit of loyalty trouble, I can just focus and recover without them? It would create a new and more interesting dynamic, and put that feature more front and center.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Agreed. Why choose to penalize myself when otherwise, despite a tad bit of loyalty trouble, I can just focus and recover without them? It would create a new and more interesting dynamic, and put that feature more front and center.

I almost never use the dark age policies. I think I used "twilight valor" once because I wanted the extra combat strength to deal with a surprise attack. But that is the only one I've ever used and it was only in one game. If I was forced to use one, it would make dark ages much more interesting.

I hope Firaxis is checking out this thread.

 

[Jkchart]

I almost never use the dark age policies. I think I used "twilight valor" once because I wanted the extra combat strength to deal with a surprise attack. But that is the only one I've ever used and it was only in one game. If I was forced to use one, it would make dark ages much more interesting.

I hope Firaxis is checking out this thread.

Exactly. They put in a feature they thought was cool, but I’ve rarely thought they were any more useful than my current policies. Making us model our own Dark age this way would both increase the usage of that content, and make Dark Ages more complex, interesting, and challenging.

 

[SaiH]

Me too, I think dark ages should become slightly darker than it is now. like these ideas with madatory dark age policies.
Maybe there should also be one overall penalty that hits you, but in a balanced way. So I would suggest that you get penalties in science output when you are ahead in the science tree (erawise) and culture penalties when you are ahead in culture tree (erawise).

 

[Yavid]

I played Call to Power back in the day and I think it would be a) annoying AF and b) freaking awesome if you get two straight dark ages the 2nd one breaks your empire in half and you fight a civil war.... Just a thought.

 

[Jkchart]

I played Call to Power back in the day and I think it would be a) annoying AF and b) freaking awesome if you get two straight dark ages the 2nd one breaks your empire in half and you fight a civil war.... Just a thought.

Full-blown Civil Wars would be amazing!

 

[NukeAJS]

Didn't read the thread, so I hope it wasn't mentioned ...

I agree and a simple tweak would be that if you enter a dark age, you have to make two dedications: one like normal for getting era points, and a completely separate one that is always negative. Since it's a "dedication" (new name would probably be needed), it would stay with you the whole era.

Some ideas:

"Fallen From Grace" - Make 75% less faith.
"Highway Men" - Harvesting resources is 75% less effective (-25% with Magnus)
"Cultural Revolution" - Make 10% less science.
"Witchhunt" - Make 10% less culture.
"Mass Emigration" - All cities get -1 food a turn.
"Embedded double agents" - Counter-spying is less effective. All enemy spies are more effective.
"Honey Pot" - All offensive spy operations are less effective. Spies more likely to get captured when a mission is failed.
"Trade War" - All gold yields from trade are reduced by 50%. Other yields reduced by 1.
"Recession" - All gold yields reduced by 25%.
"Traitors" - When an enemy kills a unit or captures a city, all enemy units gain +10 health.
"Brain Drain" - GPPs reduced by 25%.
"Guerillas" - There is a 5% chance every turn that a tile will be pillaged.
"Terror": -1 amenities all cities with more than xyz pop
"Ghettos": -1 housing all cities with more than xyz pop
"Botched military reforms" - Increased unit maintenance
"Plague": -1 pop all cities immediately
"Uprising" - Small chance for "magical" barbs to spawn around one of your cities (a la recruit partisans)
"Disaster" - A 100% chance that one of your cities will have all tiles pillaged once during the era.
"Ruthless politics" - Small chance a governor will be neutralized each turn.
"Embezzlement" - Small chance that money is stolen each turn
"Banned Games" - Entertainment districts don't provide amenities. Bread and circuses not available.

That's just off the top of my head.

If ever implemented, I would like to see the ones that have the potential to mess with your loyalty make it in the game. As it stands right now, the main reason dark ages aren't so bad is because once you deal with the initial dark age turn regarding loyalty, you're pretty much done (if you want to go and conquer, that's a different story of course). If there's the potential one of your governors gets neutralized, or you lose amenities via pillaged tiles, or your food production is outpaced by a rival -- that could turn the tides and flip a city.