Golden Age

[alex994]

I would say that u should have more then 1 golden age. Many nations had lots of peaks of power!

 

[Ision]

I have re-thought my response and it was far too hasty to say 'no way'

on second thought I agree with the extra GAs - with 1 difference:

ONLY the AI Civs should get the extra GA's - the human never!

In fact 1 extra GA will do - the moment the human has a 3 tech advantage over all other CIVs or nails ToE - all the AIs should be triggered to have a 2nd GA.

Ision

 

[Turner]

I'd rather see two or three mini-GAs than two full sized GAs.

 

[illphil]

id prefer seeing 1 GA, and other ways to improve production, i would call them seomething else though because GA's are supposed to be peaks.
The other methods should not increase production as much as a GA though, since it is not nearly as big of an event

 

[Lord Parkin]

Well many civs in the real world had more than one GA (Russia and the Babylonians, for example). But you've got to think of it from a gaming point of view. If you have unlimited Golden Ages, you could theoretically be in a GA for the whole game, so you've got to limit them. Plus, if there's going to be more than one the LENGTH of a GA should be cut down - to maybe 10 turns. And one GA per era sounds good to me. 4 GA's x 10 turns each = 40 turns total in golden age, which is probably the maximum in a sensible 540 turn game. That's my opinion anyways.

 

[DragonRunner]

I was thinking of powering the GA down a little. It gives you great benefits, and more than one of these WOULD be too powerful. I was thinking that it would be more historically accurate for there to be more than one period where a civ was dominating. I'm sure it's happened a lot in real life.

 

[Oddible]

Heh, I like Ision's suggestions. Would delay the inevitable. There is that point in a game when the human player tips the scale irreversibly and the AI is doomed - giving them an extra GA at that point would definite keep my interest longer.

 

[bru]

I like the game as is. A lot of my early game strategy is based on entering the GA at the right moment. If I succeed it is a great feeling!!

 

[troytheface]

always amazed when i see posts that want more more more , two uu's (a contradiction of the word "unique" ) two Golden Ages
(again, a contradiction of the meaning of the word) noticed that favorite uu's in polls tend to be heavy offensive values- greed and non satisfaction - i fear that when we try to make "good" "better" what u get is actually worse.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Good point there. A great deal of the satisfaction (for most players anyway) comes from winning a balanced, equal game. But we're not suggesting here that the extra Golden Ages should be only for the humans, the AI should get exactly the same amount (perhaps more if they're losing).

BTW, bru - I actually prefer deliberately postponing the Golden Age, as they are much better in the mid to late game than very early on. Because of this, I'm very careful to only use my UU (the Bowman) if it's an emergency, specifically so I DON'T get an early Golden Age. I'm not saying you're wrong to have early GA's, just that personally I much prefer postponing them until later on.

 

[rcoutme]

I agree with Lord Parkin, I try to wait on my golden age until AT MINIMUM I am out of despotism. I like the golden age system the way it is, but I think that they should have it automatically postponed unless/until you have 1/4 of the OCN and should eliminate the tile penalty that despotism has if the GA falls during despotism time. Also, the idea that your civ would be in anarchy for half of its golden age is silly. A civ in GA should get the same bennies as a religious civ for government shifting.

 

[ColoradoBBQ]

I rather have a dark age than another golden age. They should hit out of nowhere, more likely if you're in the lead quarter in score. Luxeries are usless, gold, sheilds, food cut, and decreased content citizens. Just like the Stock Market crash or the decline of the Roman empire.

 

[troytheface]

Interesting idea there Coloradobbq. I was excited about the plague idea but found that u have to load it on a seperate scenario and that in 1.22 the radio tech is still there for that scenario...in other words i liked the idea of volcanos and plagues to hinder or alter direct linear styles of play but they did not do all that much and were not part of the normal game- but a "stock market crash" or fully implemented plague idea or something that strikes at each one of Civ's criterea -ie. economy (crash), population (plague), happiness( ), science(dark ages), culture( ) -makes sense.

 

[Frollo]

I kinda like the idea of two 15-turn GA's: one UU-triggered and one Wonder-triggered.
That way, civs with an early UU may have a second chance for glory, and civs with a better timed UU can have one long GA if they want to.

As Lord Parkin says, many real life civilizations had more than one golden age, and this may be a way to simulate this in-game.

 

[alamo]

The GA is okay, except for those poor civs that have very early UU's. It would be nice to have the option of rejecting the GA trigger.

An alternate boost would be interesting - if it were easier to keep WLTL days, or to have some sort of productivity bonus when other civs admire your culture (or better).

 

[Quasar1011]

Originally posted by SesnOfWthr
Sure, I'd love a 50 turn GA, but I'd hate to be warring with a civ in the middle of one.

When watching the game replay, sometimes I will notice this little phenomena: A civ enters its golden age, right before I conquer them. I get the message, "Aztecs enter golden age" on the replay screen, which means their UU has just won a battle against me. Trouble is (for them), they lose the war, and their golden age is for naught.

Middle of golden age would mean they are in their 10th turn after their UU has won a battle. I'd rather fight them in their golden age, and have them waste units, than for them to get stronger later.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Very interesting idea there, ColoradoBBQ - Dark Ages to even out the Golden Ages. In fact, that would be one way of balancing the game - civs near the bottom in score have high probabilities of entering Golden Ages, and civs that are right at the top of the the score table have an increased chance of entering a Dark Age.

Although I don't know whether the "Dark Age" should be quite as powerful as you suggest. I think it'd be more fair if it was sort of the opposite of a Golden Age - 1 less shield in all shield-producing squares, etc. Maybe a bit more unhappiness, but not TOO much (a Dark Age should just weaken a civ, not practically destroy it IMO). Less gold per turn, etc.

I wonder if there's any SIMPLE way of implementing this into the game?

 

[DragonRunner]

I'm not very experienced with the editor, but couldn't you mod a golden age so that it lowers shields, increases corruption, etc.?

 

[Turner]

The only thing you can mod about the GA is the length. The rest is hard coded in.

 

[Kevinicus]

One is fine actually, surely it would be unfair if one civ got 3 of em or so and the other only one due to the historical timeline or the way he plays :O