Fall of Civilization - golden and dark ages.

IntoTheSky

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 6, 2017
Messages
18
Hello.

21'th century is an age of stupidity so far.
Movies are boring, culture is ruined, art is dead.
Now, they ruined Sid Maiers : Civilization.
I started with Civ 1 , and spent God knows how many thousands of hours playing this game, so I can't just remain silent about it.

This game is bad and stupid on so many levels, that it is impossible to describe it in one thread, so I will
post more of them. Each thread will focus on different feature.
If I find time, I will show you that you can win Deighty with...scouts. Yes, this game is so stupid that you can do it.

Lets start with "new, exciting feature" - ages.
You can fall into dark age of stupidity in Civ 6, but Civilopedia says : "don't worry, or be too upset if you fall into Dark Age"
upload_2018-3-20_20-37-20.png



Civilopedia is right - don't be upset.

Dark ages are awsome. Not only you can have powerfull + on domestic trade routes, but also
you can exp your units by letting some city to become independant. Independant units are just a cannon fodder, just like all units controled by AI in Civ6. They are just a source of exp.
Its very hard to loose city by loyality issue, however. You can fix loyalty on many ways, so the only negative effect of Dark Age is NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL.

If you survive this terrible, hard times of Dark Age, you can enter Heroic Age.

Golden age gives some bonus, heroic age gives 3 bonuses,
only "normal" age sucks.

Dark age is scarry only by it's name.
Don't be upset, keep clicking!


How about history?
How did this Dark Age really looked like?
Well, for example, we had a Plague in Europe DURING "Dark ages":

The Black Death, also known as the Black Plague, Great Plague or simply Plague, was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people in Eurasia and peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351.[1][2][3] The bacterium Yersinia pestis, which results in several forms of plague, is believed to have been the cause.[4] The plague created a series of religious, social, and economic upheavals, which had profound effects on the course of European history.

The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population


in Civilization VI, you have +2 food/ production. So, this is total oposite to what "Dark age" should be!
What the Sid is going on?
 
Last edited:
I just like to say I disagree with everything you say in your first two sentences.
I agree that the Dark Age in Civ is not a simulation of a real Dark age but I don't think it's meant to be, we are dealing with a game after all. I remember Civ I on my friends PC but didn't start playing to Civ II. Been hooked ever since and for me Civ VI is better than all that went before.
 
you can exp your units by letting some city to become independant. Independant units are just a cannon fodder, just like all units controled by AI in Civ6. They are just a source of exp.
They fixed this in the previous patch, AFAIK. Unless the fix is broken (didn't have the chance to test it yet), you are wrong in this.

Your post is too harsh, it isn't really THAT bad.
I agree that ages are implemented a bit weird and I personaly don't even feel that golden ages give any significant advantage (other than loyalty), because especially in the first half of the game the dedications are kinda week and hard to choose from (for me).
Dark ages are something I try to avoid, but for a very stupid reason (not my fault, I would say) - the dark color scheme hurts my eyes... There needs to be an option to turn this off.
Also golden ages seems too easy to get so far (I've played only 2 and half games). Putting this all together, I would suggest to make golden ages harder and stronger (bonus yields like in Civ5 or something similar).
 
Agreed on the color scheme issue...another reason to avoid Dark Ages. I personally think using the Dark Age as a trigger for Heroic was a mistake. Dark Ages should be exactly that. Dark. Something to avoid and work hard to get out of.

Heroic Ages should only occur when you really blow the top off your Golden Age threshold. Of course, Golden Ages should also be harder to get. It seems in their eagerness to offer the new "ages" mechanic, the powers that be forgot the Normal should be the default age, and the others unique, harder to achieve ages...

I also disagree that this game is the worst. Having played since Civ I, I think it's one helluva lotta fun. Does it need some nitpicking? Well, of course, but it seems they have been trying to get those hot fixes out since R&F, so I'm optimistic that things will only get better.

Re: black death. Agreed that it could be a good fit. In the R&F trailer, they hinted at it, and I wondered how they could work that into the game mechanics...its entirely possible itwas planned but dropped due to internal problems...maybe the next expansion.
 
Movies are boring, culture is ruined, art is dead.
Well with that view I am not surprised you do not like civ. What confuses me is why you bother. The only good negative threads are ones with alternatives. The rest provide nothing of value.
Thank you for the warning though. I can now just avoid them.
 
Simply by forcing you to adopt one of the black policy cards during Dark Ages would be a good fix.

Do you want to get out of Dark Age? Ok then you should adopt one black policy. Do you want to make it faster? Then adopt two of them. The more you choose, the faster it goes, to a limit, let's say, 12 turns or so. After that you hit normal again. This would be fun since you'd have to deal with those black disadvantages at the same time you try to balance with the advantages.
 
21'th century is an age of stupidity so far.
Movies are boring, culture is ruined, art is dead.
Now, they ruined Sid Maiers : Civilization.
I started with Civ 1 , and spent God knows how many thousands of hours playing this game, so I can't just remain silent about it.

This game is bad and stupid on so many levels, that it is impossible to describe it in one thread, so I will
post more of them. Each thread will focus on different feature.
If I find time, I will show you that you can win Deighty with...scouts. Yes, this game is so stupid that you can do it.

Obviously, you have made it your mission to point out just how stupid the rest of us must be if we are enjoying Civilization6. However, based on your spelling and grammar skills I question your qualifications. But some people do have fun just tearing other things down to make themselves feel better, so have it! I look forward to the >cough< education you will provide. Your impartial insight to the myriad failures of Civ6. Also, while you're at it, please point us all in the right direction about movies and culture and art. You must be years ahead of the general public on these matters.
 
For a game that a grandpa once played Civ 1 wants to play with his grandsons and a mother wants to teach her young daughter how to play, I do not think the Golden\Dark\Heroic Ages mechanic as it is now is so bad as argued in OP. CIv 4 might indeed be the high tide of the Civ franchise as a historic simulation. In contrast, CIv 6 seems to move to the other extreme as a digital board game. Good or bad? It might mostly depend on your taste (and to some extent, the gaming time available to you).

I remember in CIv 4 expansions, we did have something like revolution and so on. The "rise and fall of empires' is actually not a total new idea for Civ veterans IMHO. But why not CIv 5 keep doing that? It was said most players did not enjoy the story of their hard-won empires suddenly breaking apart for one reason or another on the way to victory and glory.

Compared with those similar mechanics in Civ 4, the dark age things in Civ 6 look like a compromise -- and a big one. Is that really a flaw? I am not so sure. According to Steam achievement statistics, less than 30% of the civ 6 owners could win a victory on Prince difficulty. If that does say something, I could accept this compromise in game design. Accept, no more and no less.

If I want to play a game with more historic simulation flavour, I might go back to play CIv 4 with the Rise of Mankind mod, or I might even play Victoria 2 or EU 4. But Civ 6 still has something unique in its own elegant way. Civ 6 vanilla in itself is innovative, but not a great game for me (just for me). It is a quick digital board game with a lot of immersion-breaking moments, even not to mention the art style and AI diplomacy problems. The R&F expansion tries to bring back again the famous immersion dimension ('on more turn!') of the Civ game by introducing story-telling elements such as Golden\Dark\Heroic Ages system and era points. This trick works for me at least, in this 'brave new world'.
 
Last edited:
I personally think using the Dark Age as a trigger for Heroic was a mistake. Dark Ages should be exactly that. Dark. Something to avoid and work hard to get out of.
Heroic Ages should only occur when you really blow the top off your Golden Age threshold.
Exactly my thoughts.
Normal ages should really be normal, common, standard. Golden ages should be special and happen only sometimes. Heroic ages should happen when you get waaaay over the threshold for a golden age.

Simply by forcing you to adopt one of the black policy cards during Dark Ages would be a good fix.
I don't really like the implementation that dark age policy cards are the same as other cards and take the same slot (the universal slots). Either there should be special slots for them or a completely different system. It even could be on the level of dedications, but then it would probably require some tweaks, because preventing you from building settlers for a whole age could be a bit too much :)
 
Like some, I don't like the way the Heroic age can be reached through a dark one. That feels too much like rewarding a dark age.

Most of the OP was nonsense, though.

Also, you have to introduce some new stuff to every Civ game. That's not too easy when you're in the 6th version of the game. The ages are one of the better introductions, imo. I'd rather remove / change Emergencies or Governors before binning the era system.

Ps. I would be curious to see a Deity (or Deighty) win with scouts only.
 
I mean,the game is not finished yet...Who knows if the next expansion introduce the dearest plague system?
Be patient :)
I could swear that plague was in one of the Civs/expansions. People hated it IIRC. It's the kind of thing that people say or think they want until they actually get it.
 
I could swear that plague was in one of the Civs/expansions. People hated it IIRC. It's the kind of thing that people say or think they want until they actually get it.
Civilization (not the game series) didn't ask for plagues either but here we are:mischief:
Civ 6 has already two mechanics that are compatible with plague system, like housing and dark ages...it would be good to introduce this because it would punish the player who only invests on building districts in order to get GPP instead of building city infraestructure on behalf of citizens life quality.
 
Dark ages suck, I don't know why people seem to think they're not so bad. Struggling to keep cities in a large empire due to loyalty is a pain in the ass. Plus it makes conquering other civs more difficult. Sometimes you have to choose loyalty cards to keep cities, while you'd be much better off choosing other cards instead.
 
Civ 6 has already two mechanics that are compatible with plague system, like housing and dark ages...it would be good to introduce this because it would punish the player who only invests on building districts in order to get GPP instead of building city infraestructure on behalf of citizens life quality.

While I am all in favor of instituting disasters such as plagues, the player should not be able to defend against them before the first one hits. With each occurrence of a plague (or other disaster) something new is added to the game that the player can choose to build/employ to help minimize a future outbreak.
 
Obviously, you have made it your mission to point out just how stupid the rest of us must be if we are enjoying Civilization6. However, based on your spelling and grammar skills I question your qualifications. But some people do have fun just tearing other things down to make themselves feel better, so have it! I look forward to the >cough< education you will provide. Your impartial insight to the myriad failures of Civ6. Also, while you're at it, please point us all in the right direction about movies and culture and art. You must be years ahead of the general public on these matters.

No, this is not my mission.
English is not my native language. Write smth in Polish, Karpius, and let me judge your qualifications.
Also, I will not point any direction for culture, Im not megaloman. I can question its value, however, can I ?

Civ 6 is not challenging at all.
It is like facebook game , you just have to clickclickclick , and all your actions lead to the same result.
 
and all your actions lead to the same result
If that result is unhappiness, stop
I certainly love my games though I rarely finish them. What does winning mean anyway.
its all in your attitude... the rest of my life is hard so I look forward to civ anyway... maybe you have life too easy?
 
It is like facebook game , you just have to clickclickclick , and all your actions lead to the same result.

Why do you feel the need to tell so many of us who choose to play it? You stated you hoped to do a series of threads on how bad it is. Is it meant to be a public service of some sort? I am not understanding. Now if *you* feel it is not challenging, then that is fair. But you started out condemning the entire 21st century (all 18 years of it so far) and blasting the game as though you were trying to warn us to avoid it because *you* have deemed it so awful. Your words have the connotation that anyone who does enjoy the game or even finds it challenging must be a moron. So I am just trying to figure out what exactly you are trying to tell this group of "Civfanatics". Emphasis on ...fanatics.
 
Top Bottom