Is it better to rush advance era or not?

[peterw1987]

Which is better?
I cant find the complete list pro con of era advancement.

Some I can list from my experience.

Pro:
1. Higher natural wonder yield.
2. Cheaper world wonder hammer.
3. AI tend to be more friendly.
4. Higher multiplier for bonus yield from belief and building scaling with era

Con:
1. Unhappiness
2. More expensive faith and gold purchase.
Added.3. Specialist food consumed increased.
4. Higher units maintenance upkeed cost

Is there anything else I missed?

 

[ElFerde]

New policy trees, if you're really behind

 

[Bascule2000]

Better rewards from allied city states

 

[Blue Ghost]

The biggest downside to rushing eras, IMO, is that later era techs are more expensive, and by going for them first, you’re delaying cheaper techs that could be useful. The biggest advantage is whatever era scaling bonuses you get. All other considerations are secondary.

 

[Stalker0]

So civs also benefit from staying back. China for example takes penalties when it advances in era

 

[bigcat88]

Progress civs will always go to new era(and Poland). China will have it's own path in world.
Depends of what techs/wonders you need. As tradition civ I always try to delay new era.

 

[peterw1987]

I can see that progress first policy(culture bonus for building) is the reason to rush era.

As you mention tradition slower era, I remember 1 more cons. Specialist food consumed increased.

 

[tu_79]

Buildings from older eras are also cheaper, same as wonders.

 

[peterw1987]

So I think the conclusion is very clear.

With all the benefits, rushing eras is always better in all situation,
Unless in some conditions :
1. Specialist oriented gameplay(since you will suffer with the increasing food needed)
2. Missionary or certain faith oriented gameplay(since the missionaries and faith purchase will be more expensive).
3. Military purchasing playstyle.
4. Some leader unique trait.

 

[peterw1987]

Buildings from older eras are also cheaper, same as wonders.

Are you sure normal buildings hammers are also cheaper? Because there is no multiplier mentioned.

On contrary, I remember how building investment cost scaling quite drastically with era and city number in older version, but I dont notice it in newer version. Since when it changed?

 

[Enginseer]

Are you sure normal buildings hammers are also cheaper? Because there is no multiplier mentioned.

On contrary, I remember how building investment cost scaling quite drastically with era and city number in older version, but I dont notice it in newer version. Since when it changed?

It changed almost a year ago to adjust for the inflation battle between supply-sided players and Keynesian players.

Supply-sided players basically were players who saved gold and used manpower to supply their infrastructure and army. This meant they weren't able to invest early, but could prepare for emergencies very effectively while being able to combat gold inflation efficiently.

Keynesian players however were players that believed that investing early is the key to the future and thus invested extremely early making sure their gold went to full use the sooner the better which means a library built 4 turns earlier and so on. They weren't able to combat gold inflation compared to supply-sided players.

And in the late game there was a lot of gold inflation, that Keynesian players and AI were basically screwed in the end. This eventually led Keynesian players to become supply-sided in the late game to sustain.

With this change however in investment cost, it paved the way for Industry being a more viable policy tree(by reducing the scaler somewhat), while buffing Keynesian players into rewarding their early investments and punishing supply-sided players of their gold storage(by enforcing a higher cost during the later game).