[NFP] Dramatic Ages Discussion Thread

[MisterBoomBoom]

I think I've only had maybe two Dark ages and one Heroic age in my games to date, both of which proved to be rather uninspiring. So anything that will make ages Dramatic I'm all for.

 

[Sostratus]

It really depends on how the cities that revolt are chosen. If it’s intelligently done then that’s good. If it’s random pockets in the middle of my kingdom that’s just obnoxious.

it seems like this mode really will encourage being a militarist to simply be able to beat down the free cities of myself and my neighbors. Assuming they try to pick border cities to revolt, of course.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I can't say anything about Dramatic Ages beyond what's in the videos, but I do want to add that it's one of the modes that I normally have on all the time. It really adds some dynamism and tension to the game. I am biased, of course, but I think it's pretty cool.

 

[Josephias]

it seems like this mode really will encourage being a militarist to simply be able to beat down the free cities of myself and my neighbors. Assuming they try to pick border cities to revolt, of course.

I'd like to add, if it's border cities and it is well balanced, that to have a dinamic belt of "free" cities, while maybe frustrating, might indeed mimick better the dinamics of empires, and lead the grievances/diplomatic game to where it should be. Actually, most empires keep a facade of cold peace while actually involving its military in proxy wars as "peacekeepers", so they end fighting over belts of "failed states", without actually touching each other military (except the occasional "confused target" error). Even open war might surface on these territories, but as long as no push is made into the rival's core territories, grievances would be kept at minimum.

This might even be good to balance a tall-vs-wide game, as you'll consider concentrating in growing your empire core, as peripheral cities become a less sure investiment that can be wiped out by a dark age. But for this to work, there is an important fine-tuning need, to make sure obtain a long (2/3+) chain of golden (or dark) ages is highly difficult. Some things that they may introduce, even if it feels gamey/ruberbanding:
- dynamic tresholds increasing for each consecutive golden age, and decreasing in the dark ages
- some kind of "malus" in the golden ages, that increases if you chain them (best thing I can think of is to increase the "services" treshold, so you need more and more amenities to keep your people content if you are chaining golden ages --> i think this could be a good representation of the decadence associated to a long-lasting powerful empire
- on the other hand dark age policies should be more drastical in its terms to provide a big bonus on a gameplay area while "killing" others (imho, at R&F they did not want to exceed themselves with the maluses, but the bonuses were kept lackluster and not worth -except for robber barons-), and should provide extra age points in the bonified area, allowing you to exit the dark age if you carry out correctly your "reform" program.

But well, just especulating, we'll need to wait and see what we get on the 24th.

 

[tsf4]

Are the changes to dedications only for this mode or for base game too? I have trouble figuring out what changes are to base game with these patches or if everything is only changed for the new mode(s).

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

What I want to know is how the loss of cities is going to actually work. Is it based on loyalty? Is it random? Our loyalty penalties harsher?

Also, how will it work with Eleanor? Will she automatically get cities?

 

[Morgawr]

I like this mode but I’m a little worried about the AI because currently they just wait out when their cities flip and don’t really try to attack and retake free cities. If they haven’t fixed this behavior then it’ll be another advantage to the human player. Has anyone seen AI recapture their free cities?

 

[8housesofelixir]

Has anyone seen AI recapture their free cities?

In my experience the Free Cities usually loyalty flipped to a nearby civ before the AI could act.

To be honest, the current "window" for Free Cities is very small. A single Free City will usually last about less than 10 turns before flip into a nearby civ's control. Taking a city in 10 turns is something an average player will struggle to do if they didn't put their troop nearby beforehand, let alone an AI.

 

[Kwami]

What I want to know is how the loss of cities is going to actually work. Is it based on loyalty? Is it random? Our loyalty penalties harsher?

Also, how will it work with Eleanor? Will she automatically get cities?

We don't know the method for which cities flip, but it's not random. Carl confirmed that in TheGameMechanic's chat.

 

[acluewithout]

What’s “wrong” with Dramatic Ages and other Game Modes?

Well. Nothing, really. The game modes are all fine as far as they go. Happy to have some new options. But if there is a “problem”, it’s that really the game modes both don’t go far enough and then go too far.

What I mean is this:

On the one hand, the game modes aren’t adding any of the big end game mechanics some people want, like Ideologies and Corporations or whatever. And, to be clear, that’s totally fine. Me and some others thought NFP was maybe going to be a back door expansion, but it’s not, and after adjusting some personal expectations I’m okay with that. But, while fine and all, it means the game modes are still not what some people were looking for, i.e. the game modes inherently don’t go as far as some people wanted.

On the other hand, the game modes then go too far for what they are doing. The modes seem to be about adding a “twist” to the base game. That twist is either something “out of the box” that might not appeal to all players (like Vampires) or something that makes the game a lot harder and or random (like more punishing Dark Ages). That’s a really, really cool idea, and allows for Civ to have a lot more customisation and also take the game in new directions. Love it. But the problem is that, in addition to adding some really cool twists, the game modes unfortunately also then throw out stuff people like and or just lack depth.

For example,

• Secret Societies is really awesome - the flavour is cool, the abilities are cool, and the new way to use Governor Titles is very cool. But the extra Free Governor Titles really ruins the mode, because it destroys the early game Governor Title economy. The game is built around having limited early Governor titles, but suddenly with SS you just swimming in titles. Added to that, there’s no trade offs with SS, or even ways just for Civs with different Societies to target you, so there’s a distinct lack of depth or tension.
  
  
• Likewise, Apocalypse Mode adds some great new disasters like comets and the ability to manipulate disasters is a great twist. But you lose control of disaster frequency (because disaster intensity is automatically maxed) and the tools for manipulating disasters are really, really limited i.e. it’s just the Soothsayer, and they’re pretty flat given everyone gets them on turn one.

• Shuffle Mode is probably the best integrate game mode so far. It’s a proper twist on existing game play, and does have some depth given you have to adapt to what techs you have and have some limited information given Eurekas revealing key techs. It mostly doesn’t really cut across any existing mechanics, except maybe when tech placement screws up certain Eurekas or Resource unlocks. The big problem here is just it’s so buggy. Anyway.
  
  
• And now we see the same thing with Dramatic Ages. More punishing Dark Ages is a great idea. Reworking Dedication Abilities as Policy Cards is a really great idea. But why get rid of normal ages and why get rid of Dedications entirely? People like these mechanics. Normal Ages are fun because they actually are the worst type of Age - having only Dark or Golden Ages means my Civ will always have access to the most powerful type of ages. And, not a big thing, but picking Dedications did let you theme your Age, and gave you interesting additional side quests.

There’s a lot to love about game modes and the season pass model. There are some really good ideas. But the game modes currently aren’t sitting well with the existing game mechanics, because while they add good stuff they keep cutting across the core design of the game by either ditching already good mechanics or just being too shallow.

There’s probably a bit of a tension here too. Like, FXS aren’t trying to massively rework core mechanics with these game modes - they are just a “twist” on the game - but they also probably want to make sure each mode feels distinct and impactful. So, there’s probably a desire to really push certain mechanics one way to greater effect - eg in Apocalypse Mode, dial up disaster intensity to max; in SS Mode, give players free Governor Titles so they get a big power spike; in DA Mode, force players into Dark or Golden Ages, no middle ground, so players always experience one of these two enhanced Ages. If FXS didn’t do that, they might be criticised for the game modes not being distinctive enough or being “boring”. But that’s just it. For me, I’d prefer these new mechanics didn’t dial up to 11, and just fitted better with the existing mechanics.

None of this means NFP is terrible etc. It really is fine. But the current execution is just a bit off, and for me it really kills the replay value.

I can't say anything about Dramatic Ages beyond what's in the videos, but I do want to add that it's one of the modes that I normally have on all the time. It really adds some dynamism and tension to the game. I am biased, of course, but I think it's pretty cool.

Thanks for joining the discussion. It’s great to have some FXS people on the boards.

I don’t doubt you, and I’m sure DA is super fun. I have a few niggles about how the game modes have been executed, most of which is probably just taste. But overall, I think NFP is pretty good, and I really do think FXS do a great job with this game and with engaging with fans more generally.

Too many boneheaded design choices for my taste.

I think that’s a bit strong, but I think I know what you mean. It feels like there’s really good stuff in the game modes, but it gets lost in a few design decisions here or there that really rub me he wrong way.

I don’t think any of the game modes need a massive rework. They just need another balance pass or another look with a more critical eye.

Anyway. I think I’ve said enough in this topic, and on this DLC generally. I’m looking forward to the patch notes. I‘ll probably play the new mode a few times when it comes out. Maybe I’ll tweak things myself as a mod, given we’re only talking about relatively small changes.

But otherwise, I think I’ll just sit back and see where Civ goes next. Not a big deal either way in the scheme of things.

 

[Uberfrog]

I don’t think any of the game modes need a massive rework. They just need another balance pass or another look with a more critical eye.

I think this is spot on. The difference between whether these game modes are still being played in a year, or tried once or twice and then abandoned, rests on how thorough the developers are with fine-tuning and improving them.

Firaxis has been asking for feedback for every component of NFP, so I have faith they will revisit every game mode. But we haven’t seen any tweaks yet.

 

[Galvatron]

My only complaint is that I don't like the Idea of instant loss. I'd prefer if you had a few turns before they rebel, so you can prepare for it if your civ is in a better situation or not.

 

[Kwami]

My only complaint is that I don't like the Idea of instant loss. I'd prefer if you had a few turns before they rebel, so you can prepare for it if your civ is in a better situation or not.

You have plenty of time to prepare while you see the coming dark age.

 

[UWHabs]

You have plenty of time to prepare while you see the coming dark age.

I mean, we still don't know precisely the mechanism used, but yeah, I think if you had even a turn of warning, it would probably be too easy to just parachute in a governor or buy a bunch of nearby troops if you were told exactly which city was in danger. If the system is logical (ie. something like the bottom 20% of your cities in terms of how much loyalty pressure your other cities give to them), then at least it should be mostly known which cities are in danger well ahead of time.

Although curious if it does end up being a fixed pct if suddenly an impending dark age tactic is settling 3-4 new tundra cities to cause them all to revolt and protect the core of your empire.

 

[Inhalaattori]

Dramatic Ages sounds really interesting as an idea, but I dont really understand why the cities would revolt right away? What determines what cities will revolt? Will it happen no matter what? Even if you have few cities with lots of loyalty and lots amenities?

Personally I think it would be much more interesting if dark ages would mean plague or other natural disasters and more barbarians spawning around or in your empire. I never liked the idea that Dark or Golden ages would only affect loyalty.

 

[tetley]

I never thought Dark Ages to be a negative, but then I don't complain about it, either. Dark Ages are wild fun, the Dark->Heroic Age is strategically challenging, and I doubt I will be much a fan of Dramatic Age. Unless Theater districts get a big buff (cause you know, it's dramatic age...).

 

[Arithmion]

We don't know the method for which cities flip, but it's not random. Carl confirmed that in TheGameMechanic's chat.

In the video, both cities were clearly close to the border, if not an actual "border city" so I assume there will be a factor of either Loyalty per turn, which somebody already said, or distance from the capital.

My question is, what are the point requirements? For the sake of simple math, let's say in a standard game a Classical age requires less than 10 points for a dark age, 10-19 for a normal age, and 20 for a golden age. In Dramatic Ages, is a dark age 0-19, and Golden 20+? Or is it Dark Age 0-15, Golden 16+?

 

[Kwami]

In the video, both cities were clearly close to the border, if not an actual "border city" so I assume there will be a factor of either Loyalty per turn, which somebody already said, or distance from the capital.

My question is, what are the point requirements? For the sake of simple math, let's say in a standard game a Classical age requires less than 10 points for a dark age, 10-19 for a normal age, and 20 for a golden age. In Dramatic Ages, is a dark age 0-19, and Golden 20+? Or is it Dark Age 0-15, Golden 16+?

We don't know, yet. But if I had to guess, it's still 20+ for a golden age.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Thoughts? Excited? Anxious? Disappointed?

• There’s some good ideas. Automatically losing Cities in a Dark Age is a pretty blunt tool for making Dark Ages harder. But I could really see that being fun at higher difficulties. I’m interested to see what it means that Free Cities exert Loyalty. I could also see this change essentially just meaning they’re more Barbs on the map, which could be... interesting... Overall, I’m really liking this change. Much more challenging Dark Ages. Awesome.

• Era Score overflow is a nice touch. I hope that makes its way into the base game.

• Losing Dedications is... a thing. I’ll miss having Golden Age Dedications (I was really hoping we might get one more dedication per Era, for a total of Five). But I could see getting Golden Age cards instead as something a lot of players will like. There will be a lot of pressure on Wild Card slots. And you basically don’t get any benefit from Dark or Golden Ages until you have a Tier 1 Government.
  
  
• But no dedications also means you don’t have an alternate source of Era Score any more. I had a lot of games recently where those Dedication Quests were all that got me over the line, particularly the Eurekas / Library Dedications. I’m going to have to lift my Era Hunting game. I see a lot of building Galleys and move Amani in my future.
  
  
• The Georgia Changes are sort of Bizarre. I don’t get why this isn’t a change in the base game. But anyway. I do wonder if some Civs will be much more interesting in this Game Mode. Mapuche could be really interesting.

• I can maybe live with losing Dedications, although I think that’s still a poor design choice, but I really, really dislike losing normal ages. I honestly think this change is what will make this a play once or twice game modes rather than an always on game mode. This plush losing Dedications means there won’t be any reason to shoot for a Dark Age to get a Heroic Age etc., which was a Super fun dynamic previously.

Overall, I honestly just don’t get these Game Modes. So many good ideas, but then these terrible design choices layered on top.

For example, Apocalypse Mode is a great idea, including the Soothsayer, but then the Soothsayer is made so “flat” mechanically and there’s no other way to mess with disasters, so the whole thing just becomes RNG tile repair; Secret Societies has fantastic ideas, including the Vampires, but then there’s no real trade-offs (even just negative Alliance Points or some SS targeted Casus Belli or WC resolutions), so there’s no depth, and then all the free Governor Titles are game breaking; and then Dramatic Ages makes fantastic changes to make Dark Ages tougher, but throws out a bunch of things that actually worked really well with Ages like Dedications.

I think these various Game Modes suffer a bit from being either not thought through enough or FXS trying too hard to “turn them up to 11”. The concepts are really solid, and they all have really great “core mechanics”. But then they either lack some needed depth or have other perverse design choices.

I really hope FXS revisit these Game Modes again with a more critical eye.

I couldn’t agree with you more. The game modes seem half baked.

Apocalypse Mode is just silly - I was hoping apocalypse mode meant that there was a chance we would get disasters that were actually serious and their frequency would increase as climate change phases advanced. What I didn’t expect was the actual apocalypse at the end ruining all your hard work and the storms being the exact same as regular mode (which to be fair was probably my fault it’s in the title).

secret societies - oh man amazing title I’m super hyped - oh just nationwide governors - boring and game breaking OP.

Tech/Civic Shuffle - Okay, this one is actually a home run and is absolutely excellent but I would have preferred if eureka didn’t reveal.

Dramatic Ages - Again sounds very cool but if it ends up being little more than those policy cards I’ll be heavily disappointed.

Personally, I think the civs justify the cost but I haven’t really found any value outside of the new civs thus far except tech/civic shuffle

 

[Pietato]

Taj Mahal's time to shine!