Let's talk about ages and dedications...

[acluewithout]

It may sound like a nice thing at first glance; but who would actually want to play with such a rule?
Either you're just kicking the AI when it's down - making the game easier in the worst way possible- or you're making a bad situation needlessly worse for the player. If you make the situation feel like it's all going downhill, many people will simply reroll. You've already got the loyalty hit, and you are in a dark age because your empire didn't do things - things which usually contribute in some small way to success. So the virtue of being in a DA is already indicating you are not in a great spot. If we slap on science and culture penalties, how do you dig yourself out?

The devs themselves, in livestreams before RF's release, outlined why they didn't want to attach heavy handed penalties to the DA. Dark age cards are supposed to be a mechanic to help make a comeback; again. Their existence is an acknowledgement that you are in a bad position by virtue of achieving a dark age in the first place.

That said, yes, some dedications need touching up, and the thresholds (and general power of heroic ages) could be addressed. But I do believe if those are on point, and loyalty is on point, then the whole thing will feel quite satisfying.
Because of the release schedule between RF and GS i don't think it's ever gotten fine tuning like the june patch did with some GS changes.

Agree completely. Good point on patches and RF v GS. Hadn't thought of that, but I think you're right.

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah, I don't want to dark ages to be so bad that you can't recover, but would be nice for there to be some penalty other than loyalty to them. That's why a simple -1 amenity per city works - for one, it adds an even bigger burden to loyalty, and if you don't have the amenities for it, it acts as that small negative to growth/production/science/culture/etc...

 

[MrRadar]

There could be outbreaks of heresy and witchcraft during the Dark Ages, with some pops turning into heretics (generating bonus culture/inspirations but damaging your religious pressure and loyalty) and/or witches (generating bonus science/eurekas, but hard-hitting loyalty). Effects removable by an Inquisitor burning the heretic or witch population, meaning -1 pop.

 

[Victoria]

Maybe your religion should be stronger during a dark age and weaker durin a golden
Bottom line as a dark age is not as nice as a normal age and I will avoid them. It also means I am never blinded by the over bright colours of a heroic.

 

[Hammurabbit]

I wish there were more dedications so they changed from game to game. Let's say there were 20 different per era changes, and only 4 were available? That would force you to pick a bit more differently.

 

[kryat]

You crazy

Doesn’t seem that crazy. You can capture wonders in combat and loyalty already.

 

[lotrmith]

It may sound like a nice thing at first glance; but who would actually want to play with such a rule?
Either you're just kicking the AI when it's down - making the game easier in the worst way possible- or you're making a bad situation needlessly worse for the player. If you make the situation feel like it's all going downhill, many people will simply reroll. You've already got the loyalty hit, and you are in a dark age because your empire didn't do things - things which usually contribute in some small way to success. So the virtue of being in a DA is already indicating you are not in a great spot. If we slap on science and culture penalties, how do you dig yourself out?

The devs themselves, in livestreams before RF's release, outlined why they didn't want to attach heavy handed penalties to the DA. Dark age cards are supposed to be a mechanic to help make a comeback; again. Their existence is an acknowledgement that you are in a bad position by virtue of achieving a dark age in the first place.

That said, yes, some dedications need touching up, and the thresholds (and general power of heroic ages) could be addressed. But I do believe if those are on point, and loyalty is on point, then the whole thing will feel quite satisfying.
Because of the release schedule between RF and GS i don't think it's ever gotten fine tuning like the june patch did with some GS changes.

Currently there's a big difference between activating a Dark Age by being 1 point short of Normal, getting that 1 point and being at a minimal normal, and being 1 point shy of golden.

Achieving any kind of Normal age is, by comparison to a dark or a golden, a punishment. Especially if you are close to any thresholds. If you just barely made normal, you're punished compared to a Dark because had you stayed Dark you'd get powerful policy cards and a slingshot into potentially a Heroic age. In Normal you get nothing. If you barely miss a Golden, you're again punished because your next thresholds are summarily increased and you may have earned points that could have been delayed but weren't and now count for nothing.

 

[lotrmith]

Doesn’t seem that crazy. You can capture wonders in combat and loyalty already.

There's a substantial difference between conquering a city, or flipping an entire city via loyalty, and merely flipping a single tile.

 

[Victoria]

There's a substantial difference between conquering a city, or flipping an entire city via loyalty, and merely flipping a single tile.

If you are just gonna flip a tile you may as well play scrabble. Sorry a bit flippant of me.
Wonders are tied to a city, probably lots of pain to change.

 

[kryat]

There's a substantial difference between conquering a city, or flipping an entire city via loyalty, and merely flipping a single tile.

I agree. A single tile seems less consequential than an entire city lost to loyalty.

I’ve also thought that the selection of which tile should be formulaic, but somewhat random under the following rules:
-The tile must be lost from a city border; it cannot be an interior tile
-Unimproved tiles take priority over improved tiles
-If an improved tile must be lost, the order of precedence for disassociation is: builder improvement, district, wonder
-More distant tiles from city center take priority over more proximal tiles
-In the event multiple tiles pass all of these criteria together, one is randomly chosen to dissociate.

Therefore, it’s extremely unlikely a wonder would disassociate, but even so, if one had to go, I like the idea of a free agent wonder than a wonder being destroyed. Consequentially, I would prefer if razed cities also followed this behavior. Wonders cannot be destroyed, but can be claimed and repaired by other civilizations.

 

[Sostratus]

Achieving any kind of Normal age is, by comparison to a dark or a golden, a punishment. Especially if you are close to any thresholds. If you just barely made normal, you're punished compared to a Dark because had you stayed Dark you'd get powerful policy cards and a slingshot into potentially a Heroic age. In Normal you get nothing. If you barely miss a Golden, you're again punished because your next thresholds are summarily increased and you may have earned points that could have been delayed but weren't and now count for nothing.

Obvious a discrete scoring system like this is going to have big jumps at the thresholds, but, the entire reason you're stating that normal is a punishment is because loyalty is an extremely binary mechanic where players all ensure that we don't lose our cities. So dark age loyalty loss, which theoretically could be a massive penalty, is irrelevant to us. When in reality it should be a huge issue.

If loyalty were adjusted for this fact, (or even, in an ambitious mod, if it had several states and varying effects...) then this entire thread would be about balancing the dedications because no one except gutsy or niche players would actually want a dark age.

 

[Victoria]

is irrelevant to us.

I lost on deity once going into a classical dark with Gitjara next to me.
Was happily trudging along on immortal with Eleanor next to me and things went very dark very quick.
Even warring on dark can be a pain.
So no, they are not irrelevant to me, if you play fat safe cities on emperor then sure but do not think the mechanics themselves are irrelevant, they come into play much more on early deity, when next to one of the dreaded twins and in a variety of other situations.
There are so many mechanics in the game now that when you make one of them stronger it can have quite a complicated nock on effect, especially to people that play in a different way.

Quoting you @Sostratus but the rant is more generic, not aimed at you.

 

[Ziad]

Tempted to say *Laughs in Phoenicia* but I once started losing loyalty in cities near my ex-Capital after a capital switch during a Dark Age.

Not my finest moment

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant tbh. It does drive my hand. I often end up investing in multiple Governors early on during an expansion phase as loyalty is important.

 

[Sostratus]

So no, they are not irrelevant to me, if you play fat safe cities on emperor then sure but do not think the mechanics themselves are irrelevant, they come into play much more on early deity, when next to one of the dreaded twins and in a variety of other situations.
There are so many mechanics in the game now that when you make one of them stronger it can have quite a complicated nock on effect, especially to people that play in a different way.

Quoting you @Sostratus but the rant is more generic, not aimed at you.

Well I was generically summarizing the attitude in the thread
It's just one of those things. It doesn't matter... until it does, then you're in trouble!

 

[acluewithout]

I see Ages and Dedications as more about giving the game a rhythm.

Golden Ages are great for expansion, peaceful or otherwise. Yes, the extra loyalty helps, but so do the Dedications.

Dark Ages are about hunkering down and growing tall. The Dark Age Cards really help with that. Loyalty being tied to population also helps - I’m building tall to strengthen Loyalty, but that population also lets me increase production, gold etc.

I’ve been burnt by unexpected Dark Ages, which has its own fun, but I just don’t see this negative as a big part of what’s “fun” about Dark Ages. It’s more just a fun wrinkle to the mechanic.

Ages and Dedications work really well IMO, but like many things from RnF they feel a little undercooked. Having a fifth dedication would help. So would having the ability to reduce other players Era score, or ways to reduce your own (to make it easier to get Dark Ages). I’ve made other suggestions before too. Really, I’m not too fussed, I just think FXS need to expand on the mechanics a little. But in the meantime, yeah, it’s all fairly good.

 

[lotrmith]

I agree. A single tile seems less consequential than an entire city lost to loyalty.

From a cost/benefit standpoint, taking or even attempting to take a city either through loyalty or by force is a huge investment for a huge payoff.

Flipping a single tile containing a Wonder, most likely by sheer virtue of being the nearest city and the original owner making huge mistakes via poor city placement, poor loyalty management, and likely random tile requirements restricting the placement of the Wonder to an outer ring that is closer to you and a likely tile to flip when they go into a Dark Age, is a very small or even non-existant investment for a big payoff.

In other words, you have to actively do deliberate things yourself to take a city. Gaining an opponent's tiles in the manner you describe is mostly done passively by you as a result of active mistakes by your opponent.

 

[kaspergm]

I lost on deity once going into a classical dark with Gitjara next to me.
Was happily trudging along on immortal with Eleanor next to me and things went very dark very quick.
Even warring on dark can be a pain.
So no, they are not irrelevant to me, if you play fat safe cities on emperor then sure but do not think the mechanics themselves are irrelevant, they come into play much more on early deity, when next to one of the dreaded twins and in a variety of other situations.
There are so many mechanics in the game now that when you make one of them stronger it can have quite a complicated nock on effect, especially to people that play in a different way.

Quoting you @Sostratus but the rant is more generic, not aimed at you.

Well I agree that inconsequential is a strong word to use, and perhaps not quite accurate either, but on the bottom line, dark ages are just not very punishing.

Sure, they may make conquest a challenge, and put an end to an otherwise successful assault, which can be if not a direct disadvantage, then at least rob you of a potential advantage - unless of course you go flat out raze-the-all, which is not really my style, but which I guess is default in competitive conquest anyway. But apart from that, in terms of just managing your own empire, I think the cases where being in a dark age is a true problem are very rare. Between governors, policies and general empire management, sustaining positive loyalty is normally very achievable even in a dark age. And assuming you manage that, then dark age is inconsequential, and I think that is a problem.

Imo. dark ages should come with a penalty to science and culture (and possibly other yields as well), which would actually make the dark age policies meaningful: You can and should be able to use the dark age policy to overcome one of these disadvantages, but not them all. I would, however, remove the inherent negative modifiers from the DA policies, as those should be included in the DA itself.

Of course, this should be done with a general balance between the ages. The gap between normal and golden age needs to be increased significantly, so that earning a golden age is actually much harder. Also some of the historic moments from warring needs to be toned down, it seems way too easy to chain golden ages by just going constant conquest.

 

[Victoria]

it seems way too easy to chain golden ages by just going constant conquest.

There is not many war era points but +4 for killing a civ is silly. It is not constant warring that gets it, is being in the lead that gets a lot. If you are taking out civs you have huge pops and get in the lead that way. You do not have to war to string golden ages you just have to be leading, in fact too many cities becomes a problem for golden ages. I have had 10 cities and got to the atomic era stringing together goldens, completely peacefully. You just need to be very aware of era points and how to get them

not very punishing.

And here in lies the key point of the post. As I said, you play in a certain way and you will not risk them, and that’s fine as far as I am concerned but you have to be aware other people learning how to play or just play differently lose cities to loyalty and some ragequit because of it, I have seen such comments on the forum. So they have to be careful how harsh they make them because they just lose custom. You play a certain way and have become skilled to manage loyalty and now complain it is inconsequential. I just say that to you yes, but to others this is not the case.
Your experiences are making your claim dogmatic but you need to consider others have a different view and there must be a reason for this.
For your style of play the issue is more about not being able to string too many goldens together or if you do you can get a dark later as you have got quite a few +5’s for previous goldens and that can feel dull.
Deity can kill you early with a dark age and so inconsequential or not very punishing are words based on playing at your level with your style of play while being aware how to avoid darks which can be punishing, even at emperor.

I personally think dark age cards are naff and rarely use them, I think any additional harshness can make it an issue for starting players

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Are there still only 4 things to choose from? Pardon me while I... .

 

[AsH2]

Maybe your religion should be stronger during a dark age and weaker durin a golden
..

..and/or your people being easier to convert during a dark age (seeking answers) but also during a golden age (open minded) - the dull normal age are to be prefered for any conservative religion.