[GS] June 2019 Patch Details

[Jaybe]

How would it even work if you’re still in Chiefdom and don’t have a Wild Card slot.

Dark Age policy cards can go into any policy slot. You don't need a wildcard slot. ...
Don't I wish.

 

[criZp]

Dark Ages and Golden Ages would just give you different things.

Golden Ages give you better loyalty and a dedication that gives you something. Maybe there would be a small negative, but still overall strong.

Dark Ages would also give you advantages, but maybe more situational. But less loyalty, and a bigger negative.

Isn’t that basically the model now? Golden Ages are mostly gravy, but they do make it more likely you’ll get a Dark Age - so there is some risk reward. Dark Ages clearly give you negatives but also bonuses (Dark Age cards).

yeah but this doesn't explain the purpose of the normal ages

 

[WillowBrook]

yeah but this doesn't explain the purpose of the normal ages

Normal ages are boring by design. I don't have a problem with this, but I can understand if some want something interesting for every age type.

 

[acluewithout]

yeah but this doesn't explain the purpose of the normal ages

Normal Ages are actually the worst because they give you no positive.

Look. Civ is supposedly about making interesting decisions. Having Dark Ages just be bad and Golden Ages good isn’t actually very interesting. Sure, you need to work at avoiding the “Bad” Dark Age - but you’re always going to want to avoid it no matter what else is going on. And if you’re a good player, you’ll never have one, so whatever challenges the Dark Age is going to throw up is irrelevant.

But if Dark and Golden Ages both have good and bad, then it’s more interesting. Which you most want might depend on what’s going on in the game. So, if you’re expanding, you’ll want a GA for then loyalty. But if you’re hunkering down and economising, you might actually want a DA.

Sure, most of the time you’ll want a GA. And so the DA will be the bad outcome, something you’ll want to avoid. But if you can’t avoid it, while it might screw up your plans, it might actually take your game in another direction. And sometimes a DA might be exactly what you want, and maybe you’ll have to work to avoid a GA. That sounds more interesting to me.

I think that’s actually how the game is currently designed. Golden Ages are mostly good and Dark Ages are mostly bad (remember, GA and DAs don’t just effect loyalty, they also effect yields because loyalty (like happiness) effects yields). But GA aren’t all good because they make it harder to avoid a DA next Era and the dedications change each Era (ie in some Eras, you can’t get the GA dedication you might want); and DAs actually are situationally good because of the DA Cards and ability to get a Heroic Age.

I just think the current design could be sharpened up a bit by using Dedications to give GAs a more explicit downside (but not too strong), DAs more explicit upside and downsides (ie not just the loyalty and from the DA cards), and making it a bit easier to actually pursue a DA (because they’re actually pretty hard to get).

 

[Kwami]

I'm pretty much fine with Dark Ages and Golden Ages as they are, except that Dark Ages shouldn't be the best for finishing the game. That's just silly.

 

[Ziad]

I mean in my games as Phoenicia I always aim for a classical Golden Age for expansion into a Medieval Dark Age for development into a Renaissance Heroic Age for expansion.

It's not that easy as I have to really cluster all my era score rewards in the classical Age but it does shape my strategies as much as anything else.

So ultimately it's more of a meta tool used for gameplay or roleplaying purposes as opposed to being some random bonus.

 

[acluewithout]

I like the system overall.

DAs are fun. I don’t see a problem with a late game DA being optimal. I mean, it’s a bit dystopian, but that’s actually kinda fun. I’m not really trying to be the good guy when I play Civ...

I do find the Ages system can be a bit anti-fun though when I’m aiming for a DA. It means I have to actively avoid doing things - avoid clearing barn camps, avoid goody huts (unless someone will grab one), avoid completing districts.

It would be more fun if you could actively lose Era score. Imagine if you lost era score declaring war - if you wanted a DA, you’d just declare on your neighbour and let the good times roll!

 

[criZp]

Normal ages are boring by design. I don't have a problem with this, but I can understand if some want something interesting for every age type.

yeah but thats not the point, the point is that normal ages are plain inferior to golden ages and not a "strategic alternative", then why should dark ages be an alternative to golden ages? if the dark age is a viable alternative then why should normal ages not be?

 

[acluewithout]

If GAs and DAs both have pluses and minuses, then the advantage of a Normal Age is that it’s neutral. Sure, there’s no real upside - but there’s no downside. And you start your current Era in a good position to grab either a GA or DA as suits your needs.

 

[Caprikel]

yeah but thats not the point, the point is that normal ages are plain inferior to golden ages and not a "strategic alternative", then why should dark ages be an alternative to golden ages? if the dark age is a viable alternative then why should normal ages not be?

A normal age is basically the "penalty" for not getting a Golden Age, and having a penalty for not getting the Gold Age makes getting a Golden Age more rewarding. The fact that the dedications in a normal age are all things that give you era score in hopes to get a Golden Age point to the fact that the purpose of a normal Age is to help get a Golden Age.

 

[iammaxhailme]

If GAs and DAs both have pluses and minuses, then the advantage of a Normal Age is that it’s neutral. Sure, there’s no real upside - but there’s no downside. And you start your current Era in a good position to grab either a GA or DA as suits your needs.

This would make sense, except the "downside" to the dark ages are so tiny that they barely matter but they have great upsides

 

[criZp]

If GAs and DAs both have pluses and minuses, then the advantage of a Normal Age is that it’s neutral.

Golden ages don't have a downside compared to the neutral normal age.

 

[acluewithout]

They do. GA increase the cost of avoiding the next DA and getting the next GA. So, they create a risk you’ll slip into a DA. But yes, it’s a pretty limited downside currently.

 

[criZp]

but dark ages aren't bad, and give you the chance for a hero age next time.

 

[darkace77450]

I've always thought that there should be policy cards that you can use in Normal Ages that REDUCE your era score. This way you can only afford to use them if you want to control when you enter a Dark Age at the risk of reducing what amounts to a finite number of possible age points in a game.

That could be interesting. Cards that reduce era score gained while slotted would make it possible to attain a dark age without completely sandbagging your game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

If GAs and DAs both have pluses and minuses, then the advantage of a Normal Age is that it’s neutral. Sure, there’s no real upside - but there’s no downside. And you start your current Era in a good position to grab either a GA or DA as suits your needs.

It's also important that the Normal Age doesn't shift your Theresholds. You need the exact number of points to get a Golden Age and avoid a Dark Age as in the previous era.

I legit don't get the complaint. It adds a new layer. Not to mention that Dark Age gives you the huge Underdog power. You can utilize the Dark Age policies to get some powerful bonuses (especially late-game, where you are more likely to enter a Dark Age if you somehow managed to get a string of Golden Ages) while struggling to keep your cities loyal in certain circumstances.

 

[Ziad]

That could be interesting. Cards that reduce era score gained while slotted would make it possible to attain a dark age without completely sandbagging your game.

It would be less game-y than purposefully avoiding era score, at least excessively, to attain a Dark Age.

 

[Kwami]

The complaint is that optimal play will be to aim for a Dark Age in the final era, which is counterintuitive and thematically silly.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

the civ franchise was until civ VI against disasters and dark ages since the feel good about your empire feeling is simply not there and that means casual players will stop playing ( the one more turn addiction is only possible if you feel good about your empire or you know you can turn it around ) . The implementation of bonuses after disasters ( i am still waiting for hurricanes to get something ) and dark ages getting the potantial to turn it around to a heroic age was the compromise they did. Unfortunately this compromise does not work in the last era so they straight up gave a cards that would help your win condition also to the dark age policies. i am afraid it is simply catering to the casual players and not for discussion for people who can play the game good enough to actually get whatever age they want whenever they want.

 

[DanQuayle]

When you are in a dark age, it makes conquering (and keeping cities) more difficult due to lower population loyalty pressure.
But it also makes it much easier for your opponents/neighbors to conquer and keep yours if they are in a normal/golden/heroic age.
If you have an unfriendly neighbor who is in a normal/golden age when you are in a dark age, it should almost be a guarantee to get DoW'd (or at least a very high probability on higher difficulty levels)
That would be a proper downside (forced to defend) and justify the dark age policy cards' bonuses.