Golden age powers?

[ybbor]

Make it so that you can only build this small wonder after you get a victory with your UU.

make a thread to encourage discussion, and so i can put a link to it in current topics

 

[a4phantom]

not if it's instead triggered by wonders

Thanks for clearing that up. Would you disagree that the UUs generally place each Civ's GA during their proper historical time?

 

[Elgalad]

I raise the question that the 'Golden Age' is a universal constant among civilizations. If it means the time a civ was at ITS peak, okay, yes I can see that, but havent some civs had multiple peaks? And if instead it means a time when the civ was booming along, outpacing other civs I would have to disagree. Some civs have been mediocre forever, but have great longevity. Korea is a very old nation that has never really been that important globally until the middle 20th century when it became a hotly contested strategic flashpoint. Holland's 'Golden Age' if you could call it that was really just a lull in its defiance of Spain long enough for it to attempt (unsuccessfully) colonization in the New World. Rome on the other hand had many ups and downs during its turbulent era. Periods of expansion and near disintegration alternated over thousands of years until finally it split in two (creating Byzantium) and began a slow decline. Italy made a decent comeback however, in the middle ages and then in the early 20th century before becoming a battleground in World War 2. Japan was a mostly unimportant little island until the turn of the 20th century when it first defeated Russia in war, then dominated China, and finally joined the Axis, expanding rapidly towards its dream of a Pacific Empire. Losing WW2 and suffering incredible damage from nuclear destruction sent it into deep decline. Over the last few decades though, it has rebounded spectactularly well, becoming an economic Superpower to be reckoned with.

My point in all this is that Golden Ages are fine concepts but not truly balanced or realistic given world history. As game tools they work well, but I think they should be first toned down some in power and second allowed to occur more frequently than only Once. Offering other ways to trigger them would help too, because limiting them to a reward for using a civ-specific combat unit or building a great wonder isn't really logical.

-Elgalad

 

[sir_schwick]

I thought that the game should measure how successful you are to others, plot that on a bell curve, determing about when your zenith is, in terms of game benefits. Whenever you are near the top of your game, you would get a UU, or if you were really powerful(spectacular fall later on) you would get multiple UUs and maybe even Unique Techs. This way you always get your UU during the height of 'your' power, not that civ in history. This is a what-if, not a this-is type game.

 

[a4phantom]

I thought that the game should measure how successful you are to others, plot that on a bell curve, determing about when your zenith is, in terms of game benefits. Whenever you are near the top of your game, you would get a UU, or if you were really powerful(spectacular fall later on) you would get multiple UUs and maybe even Unique Techs. This way you always get your UU during the height of 'your' power, not that civ in history. This is a what-if, not a this-is type game.

How would the computer know whether you were peaking or still on the rise? I think the system is fine, it gives each civ a chance to move ahead during its historic time. I think it does a good job of injecting history without damaging playability.

 

[sir_schwick]

Currently now you never experience a fall. The algorithim of calculating a good curve is somethign left to someone with a little bit more math education(statistics would be preferred). I will still try to think of an answser though. The point was that you have to decline at some point, but your success will have been in what you accomplished during your time of power. You woudl also have the option, when your empire eventually splinters, of controlling one of the seperating factions, since it was your genius that got them there.

As for the second point, you are right in that it moves civs ahead in their historical time. Unfortunately that limits some of the 'what-if' part of Civ. In some ways Civ 2 was very interesting because everyone started with slightly different techs(random) but in other respects were same at the beginning. No assumptions about when their 'golden age' was. I would like a system where civs evolve(player controlled) rather than are static and have no social change(traits same throughout history).

 

[a4phantom]

As for the second point, you are right in that it moves civs ahead in their historical time. Unfortunately that limits some of the 'what-if' part of Civ. In some ways Civ 2 was very interesting because everyone started with slightly different techs(random) but in other respects were same at the beginning. No assumptions about when their 'golden age' was. I would like a system where civs evolve(player controlled) rather than are static and have no social change(traits same throughout history).

I think there's a packaged mod that disables UUs, and you could easily edit out traits. Problem solved.

 

[sir_schwick]

But I still want traits and UUs, just not pre-determined ones. Civ 3 currently cannot implement this.

 

[Brighteye]

BUMP
Golden ages when the slop of increase in your score is decreasing and becomes below a certain gradient?
This is a perfect way to help failing civs and balance the game. Since everyone seems to think that warmongering is too easy, this would make it harder, because you'd force the game to give every one of your opponents a golden age. It would have to be carefully balanced so that the golden age could never entirely make up for failing situation.
There could be a score bonus for finishing without having had a golden age, so that if you win while in one or without ever having started one you get a bonus.