[GS] June 2019 Patch Details

[shaglio]

The fact the the game incentives striving for a Dark Age is indeed silly. You should never strive to get either a Dark Age or a Normal Age. You should ALWAYS be striving for a Golden Age, and if you fail you wind up with a Normal Age. If you drastically fail, you suffer a Dark Age.

Also, I think they should get rid of Heroic Ages and make it so that you choose 1 dedication in a Normal Age and 3 dedications in a Golden Age.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The age system is designed so you either want gold or dark as normal age is basically a worse version of a dark age without policy and no Heroic age. If that is a good thing or not is a good question, it make it more a gamble because if you go for gold you may risk getting a normal age. Now if it was dark < normal < gold instead of dark > normal < gold it would not really have any strategy element behind it other than go straight for gold.

That dark age is good could represent it forcing the people to be creative while normal age is simply status quo that don't encourage major reforms.

 

[Amrunril]

I think the underlying problem with the age system is that its changes in loyalty pressure, arguably meant to be the primary effect, are often irrelevant. If the system were balanced such that loyalty were a more persistent concern, the possibility of going into a dark age instead of a normal age would be much scarier.

 

[criZp]

I think the underlying problem with the age system is that its changes in loyalty pressure, arguably meant to be the primary effect, are often irrelevant. If the system were balanced such that loyalty were a more persistent concern, the possibility of going into a dark age instead of a normal age would be much scarier.

true. didn't anton say that dynamic empires was the key idea in rise and fall exp?

 

[WillowBrook]

The fact the the game incentives striving for a Dark Age is indeed silly. You should never strive to get either a Dark Age or a Normal Age. You should ALWAYS be striving for a Golden Age, and if you fail you wind up with a Normal Age. If you drastically fail, you suffer a Dark Age.

You may think so, but that's not how the game is designed. They explicitly said in the lead up to R&F that some of the play testers were deliberately going for dark ages so as to get a heroic age. They hinted that the casual player may not be so calculating, but they certainly expected some players go for dark ages.

Maybe a different label would communicate better what they were going for? Instead of a dark age, call it an unsettled age or disloyal age or an uncertain age or transition age? Would that make it seem less silly?

 

[S1AL]

The problem is two-fold:

There's no reason whatsoever to want a Normal Age

Dark Ages are just as good as Golden Ages

So yeah, I agree with @WillowBrook that it probably deserves a better naming convention, as well as a fix to make "Normal" not useless.

Additionally, I find the turn-locking design extremely frustrating. If I get stuck in a war that locks me out of Golden, and getting Dark is actually fairly hard early, it's a very negative mechanic to have my bonuses for the next (insert number of turns here) determined by that. It would be less annoying if Normal Ages didn't suck, but it's still really rough to miss out on Golden due to variance* and then not have access to those early tools - especially for Faith civs. Moreover, it's just thematically awkward having things like the Medieval Era start when you're (a) still stuck on Swordsmen, (b) researching Industrialization.

Tying Golden Ages to turn number is a mistake in my opinion.

*That sort of variance (such as missing a Wonder on slot order) is mostly a multiplayer issue.

 

[iammaxhailme]

You may think so, but that's not how the game is designed. They explicitly said in the lead up to R&F that some of the play testers were deliberately going for dark ages so as to get a heroic age. They hinted that the casual player may not be so calculating, but they certainly expected some players go for dark ages.

Maybe a different label would communicate better what they were going for? Instead of a dark age, call it an unsettled age or disloyal age or an uncertain age or transition age? Would that make it seem less silly?

I mean, yeah. With the game how it is now, I totally understand why you would sometimes aim for a dark age. My view is that I don't think the game should be designed that way.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I think the current design is actually really smart.

Dark ages are meant to be charity for players who are severely behind. If you've ever played Mario Kart, then you know about the infamous blue shell item that you can only get when you're in last place. It crashes into every racer in front of you, which allows you to come back from behind. Dark age policies and the possibility of getting a heroic age are the blue shell of Civ 6. In game design terms, this is often referred to as a "rubberbanding" mechanic. It gives players who have fallen behind a reason to keep trying instead of just giving up.

Many in this thread have asked, "What's to stop players from trying to get dark ages on purpose?" Many have also asked, "Why are normal ages the actual worst one you can get?" But these two questions answer each other. Normal ages are the worst because they are your punishment for trying to get a dark age on purpose. The risk of possibly getting a normal age by accident is what incentivizes the player to keep pushing for a golden age every era instead of gaming the system by shooting for alternating dark ages and heroic ages.

It's a very elegant design that clearly had a lot of thought put into it.

 

[Chocolate Pi]

It's an oversimplification to state that Dark Ages are equal to Golden Ages.

Most Dark Ages advantages are internally focused:

• Pivoting from early Holy Sites to Science
• Defending your territory
• Defending your religion
• Boosting domestic trade routes
• Boosting growth

While Golden Age advantages are extenally focused:

• Stealing cities with Loyalty pressure
• More civilian units, including Settlers
• Better spreading of your Religion
• Boost to foreign settling
• Invincible traders and foreign bonuses
• Special Casus Belli

Regardless of "strength", the experience of playing them is very different.

 

[shaglio]

You may think so, but that's not how the game is designed. They explicitly said in the lead up to R&F that some of the play testers were deliberately going for dark ages so as to get a heroic age. They hinted that the casual player may not be so calculating, but they certainly expected some players go for dark ages.

Maybe a different label would communicate better what they were going for? Instead of a dark age, call it an unsettled age or disloyal age or an uncertain age or transition age? Would that make it seem less silly?

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that’s how people should play with the rules as they’re written now. I was suggesting how the should change the Age system. Currently, striving for a Dark Age so you can make a Heroic Age is the smart move. I was suggesting they should change the Ages so that isn’t the smart move.

 

[Kwami]

I think the current design is actually really smart.

Dark ages are meant to be charity for players who are severely behind. If you've ever played Mario Kart, then you know about the infamous blue shell item that you can only get when you're in last place. It crashes into every racer in front of you, which allows you to come back from behind. Dark age policies and the possibility of getting a heroic age are the blue shell of Civ 6. In game design terms, this is often referred to as a "rubberbanding" mechanic. It gives players who have fallen behind a reason to keep trying instead of just giving up.

Many in this thread have asked, "What's to stop players from trying to get dark ages on purpose?" Many have also asked, "Why are normal ages the actual worst one you can get?" But these two questions answer each other. Normal ages are the worst because they are your punishment for trying to get a dark age on purpose. The risk of possibly getting a normal age by accident is what incentivizes the player to keep pushing for a golden age every era instead of gaming the system by shooting for alternating dark ages and heroic ages.

It's a very elegant design that clearly had a lot of thought put into it.

Yeah, sure, fine. Except that wining in a Dark Age shouldn't be optimal. That's just stupid.

 

[acluewithout]

I don’t get why people insist that Dark Ages should be negative.

Historically, periods which I think the game might describe as dark ages have provided huge benefits and opportunities for growth. One of the best times to be alive in medieval England just after the black plague or the fire of london. Sure, everybody died and everything burnt down, but lots of employment opportunities and infrastructure and construction work. WW2 was probably a “dark age” for England, but gave you baby boomers and computers (and more infrastructure and construction work).

Civ is a God Game. If you’re God, and your goal is to take you people to the stars, wouldn’t you push your people into a dark age to secure that if that’s what’s required? Feels very Asimov’s Foundation to me.

DAs and GAs should both have risk and reward. That’s more strategically interesting, and I actually think it’s more thematic and historical. I’m okay with Dark Ages having relatively more risk and being more situational, so they are mostly something you want to avoid. But it’s way more interesting if DAs are situationally optimal (yes, even in the end game) and GAs should also have some risk and reward so sometimes they’re not optimal.

Is this really so controversial? I mean, look at the tier 3 governments. Facism is clearly the “bad” one (ie evil, not something you’d personally aspire to). But Civ gives it bonuses. It lets you play evil and gives you rewards for doing so. That’s a lot more fun mechanically than just making democracy the only good government.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think the underlying problem with the age system is that its changes in loyalty pressure, arguably meant to be the primary effect, are often irrelevant. If the system were balanced such that loyalty were a more persistent concern, the possibility of going into a dark age instead of a normal age would be much scarier.

I agree. The under-utilization of the loyalty system robs the game of potential interest, at least for those who like to see their empires be more difficult and challenging to manage as they get bigger.

I'm hopeful that Civ 7 - whether it happens next or after a third expansion - takes a fresh look at loyalty and integrates it into the base mechanics, instead of slapping it on for limited purposes in an expansion.

Yeah, sure, fine. Except that wining in a Dark Age shouldn't be optimal. That's just stupid.

Not being allowed to win the game during a Dark Age, now that might be interesting, at least in theory. In practice, though, it would just mean clicking "next turn" for another whole era as a penalty for accidentally getting one too many golden ages earlier in the game.

I suspect we can file the end game dark age policies with rock bands and GDRs under "I'm having trouble winning, help please!".

 

[WillowBrook]

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn’t saying that’s how people should play with the rules as they’re written now. I was suggesting how the should change the Age system. Currently, striving for a Dark Age so you can make a Heroic Age is the smart move. I was suggesting they should change the Ages so that isn’t the smart move.

But that would leave causal players getting lots of frustrating dark ages and good players always avoiding them. Which would be bad game design for a game that aims for players with a broad range of abilities. @Ivan Hunger 's post above is right on, IMO.

 

[Caprikel]

I don’t get why people insist that Dark Ages should be negative.

Historically, periods which I think the game might describe as dark ages have provided huge benefits and opportunities for growth. One of the best times to be alive in medieval England just after the black plague or the fire of london. Sure, everybody died and everything burnt down, but lots of employment opportunities and infrastructure and construction work. WW2 was probably a “dark age” for England, but gave you baby boomers and computers (and more infrastructure and construction work).

Civ is a God Game. If you’re God, and your goal is to take you people to the stars, wouldn’t you push your people into a dark age to secure that if that’s what’s required? Feels very Asimov’s Foundation to me.

DAs and GAs should both have risk and reward. That’s more strategically interesting, and I actually think it’s more thematic and historical. I’m okay with Dark Ages having relatively more risk and being more situational, so they are mostly something you want to avoid. But it’s way more interesting if DAs are situationally optimal (yes, even in the end game) and GAs should also have some risk and reward so sometimes they’re not optimal.

Is this really so controversial? I mean, look at the tier 3 governments. Facism is clearly the “bad” one (ie evil, not something you’d personally aspire to). But Civ gives it bonuses. It lets you play evil and gives you rewards for doing so. That’s a lot more fun mechanically than just making democracy the only good government.

I definitely agree, and to add to the government thing, in addition to both Fascism and Communism being considered evil governments, all the tier 4 governments seem to be rather dystopian in nature as well. Winning the game during a Dark age seems thematic to me especially when I have what is effectively a dystopian government in power.

 

[Kwami]

Not being allowed to win the game during a Dark Age, now that might be interesting, at least in theory. In practice, though, it would just mean clicking "next turn" for another whole era as a penalty for accidentally getting one too many golden ages earlier in the game.

I suspect we can file the end game dark age policies with rock bands and GDRs under "I'm having trouble winning, help please!".

I wouldn't suggest not being allowed to win in a Dark Age. I'm totally OK with winning in a Dark Age. Come from behind, blah blah. That's all fine. I'm simply suggesting that winning in a Dark Age shouldn't be the optimal way to play. That's all.

 

[acluewithout]

I definitely agree, and to add to the government thing, in addition to both Fascism and Communism being considered evil governments, all the tier 4 governments seem to be rather dystopian in nature as well. Winning the game during a Dark age seems thematic to me especially when I have what is effectively a dystopian government in power.

I wouldn't suggest not being allowed to win in a Dark Age. I'm totally OK with winning in a Dark Age. Come from behind, blah blah. That's all fine. I'm simply suggesting that winning in a Dark Age shouldn't be the optimal way to play. That's all.

Well, at the end of the day, I can understand people do have different views about this.

I obviously like the idea of DAs being situationally optimal both for historical / thematic reasons and gameplay reasons, and would actually like FXS to sharpen that approach a little.

But I do get some people want it to be more binary - DA are essentially bad and to be avoided, GA are all awesome - and make DA something you actively need to avoid, and get this is also because of their own views about what a DA is historically / thematically and gameplay.

 

[Kwami]

I obviously like the idea of DAs being situationally optimal both for historical / thematic reasons and gameplay reasons, and would actually like FXS to sharpen that approach a little.

I would argue that with the new policy cards, and barring some other unknown changes in the patch, aiming for a Dark Age at the end is no longer situationally optimal. It's always optimal for Culture, Science, Diplomacy, and Domination victories.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

Yeah, sure, fine. Except that wining in a Dark Age shouldn't be optimal. That's just stupid.

Look at it this way. If you're in a dark age in the information era, that means one of three things has happened.

Scenario 1: You had a very bad atomic era. Now you're falling behind your closest rivals and probably can't catch back up without help.

Scenario 2: You deliberately avoided getting era score in the atomic era.

Scenario 3: You're already dominating the game, and your victory is inevitable, so now you're just having all your cities run encampment training or something stupid like that while you run out the clock.

In scenario 1, you need those dark age policy cards to even stand a chance of winning. That's their intended purpose.

In scenario 2, you took a big risk in order to get those cards. If you had earned even just 1 point of era score too many, you would have been stuck in a normal age instead. It would have been much safer to just shoot for a golden age and accept the dedication bonus relevant to the victory of your choice. But instead you decided to bet everything on a gamble that could have easily blown up in your face. If you step up to the roulette wheel and win, then you've earned your jackpot.

In scenario 3, you don't care that you got those cards, because you've already won, the game just doesn't know it yet. You probably won't even bother to slot in those powerful dark age policies. You're more likely to slot in a bunch of silly policies, just so you can have one more laugh before bringing the world under your heel.

 

[Stavangerchj]

If we look hard enough I'm pretty sure we can find examples of real life national leaders who have attempted to engineer a dark age, or at least, deliberately rolled back or halted years of progress, in order to allow the use of radical, high risk / reward policies.