Let's talk about ages and dedications...

[orasis]

Does anyone else find ages mostly inconsequential to their game play? I can't remember the last time dedications mattered to me until the 'Automaton warfare' golden age dedication came about (SAS is not bad either). That is the only dedication I feel FEELS like anything worthwhile.

I think they should completely rework all of the other dedications. Golden ages should have massive impacts on gameplay and they should feel exciting. Not simply just more yields of this or that.

 

[Haig]

I think it is a hard thing to balance right, byt I would make the Dark Ages a bit more punishing and maybe to force you to pick one of the dark age policy cards.

I've had problems with loyalty sometimes from dark age which was cool.

I personally like Golden ages but would get rid of the Heroic age which is needless.

 

[kaspergm]

I think the consensus is that early Golden Ages with Monumentality (buy Settlers and Workers with faith) is pretty overpowered, and I certainly wouldn't call them inconsequential.

When that's said, my overall opinion about the ages system is that while they do bring some good to the game, overall they bring more bad than good. Perhaps my main gripe with the system is the lack of variability between the games: I seem to always drift towards the same dedications - either because of imbalance, or because some fit my game style better than others - which means it doesn't add a lot to the replayability of the game, something that is a general problem with Civ6 compared to previous installments imo. It also often makes me do weird decisions based not on what I actually need, but in order to earn era score, which kills immersion of the game.

My pet peeve with the system is the Heroic Age. I hate this with a vengeance. Dark Ages in themselves are not as punishing as they should be, and with the Heroic Age mechanism, you want to actually aim for a Dark Age rather than a Normal Age. Talk about killing immersion! I think this is horrible game design.

 

[orasis]

I think it is a hard thing to balance right, byt I would make the Dark Ages a bit more punishing and maybe to force you to pick one of the dark age policy cards.

I've had problems with loyalty sometimes from dark age which was cool.

I personally like Golden ages but would get rid of the Heroic age which is needless.

I like that 'forced to pick a dark age card' idea. After all ... it is a dark age. Beggars can't be choosers.

 

[orasis]

I think the consensus is that early Golden Ages with Monumentality (buy Settlers and Workers with faith) is pretty overpowered, and I certainly wouldn't call them inconsequential.

When that's said, my overall opinion about the ages system is that while they do bring some good to the game, overall they bring more bad than good. Perhaps my main gripe with the system is the lack of variability between the games: I seem to always drift towards the same dedications - either because of imbalance, or because some fit my game style better than others - which means it doesn't add a lot to the replayability of the game, something that is a general problem with Civ6 compared to previous installments imo. It also often makes me do weird decisions based not on what I actually need, but in order to earn era score, which kills immersion of the game.

My pet peeve with the system is the Heroic Age. I hate this with a vengeance. Dark Ages in themselves are not as punishing as they should be, and with the Heroic Age mechanism, you want to actually aim for a Dark Age rather than a Normal Age. Talk about killing immersion! I think this is horrible game design.

If you are not generating faith they are inconsequential, as compared to - instant an Giant Death Robot and here, some Uranium on the house! Golden age bonuses, should be meaningful and powerful. The dedications from the previous expansions are very, meh.

Maybe instead of just gifting powerful units (although I am extremely open to it) how about being immune to storm damage? Or, for an early Golden age - Barbarians will never attack you, your troops or your cities etc?

 

[MrRadar]

Does anyone else find ages mostly inconsequential to their game play?

Oh, no. I find uses for them, and their use and usefulness vary from game to game. Golden Monumentality with strong faith generation is a beast. Golden Reform the Coinage drowns you in gold midgame. Heartbeat of Steam, if it comes at right moment for some wonders and you have wonderful campus districts - oh boy! Nothing wrong with Free Enquiry. I even had some use for Golden Hic Sunt Dracones and Exodus of Evangelists. And Golden Bodyguard of Lies - what a boon!
On the other hand, Pen Brush and Voice is a bit meh, Sky and Stars a very big meh - it's not necessary anymore at that point, and Automaton Warfare is just some misunderstanding. Everything is decided and done long before GDRs, and unless you go for them specifically to use them for fun, you neither need them for anything, nor see on the map.

What I'd change is scoring. Right now there are just too much era score rewards or thresholds are too low. When you can chain Golden Ages one after another after another after another and so on, or overshoot the threshold by ~100 points, something is not right.

 

[Victoria]

The difference between monumentality and the others is ... monumental. Free inquiry is quite nice and ends too early to be a serious threat ( perhaps rightly so)
However... the huge difference with ages is down to loyalty. It is easy to underestimate this puppy.

 

[UWHabs]

If you are not generating faith they are inconsequential, as compared to - instant an Giant Death Robot and here, some Uranium on the house! Golden age bonuses, should be meaningful and powerful. The dedications from the previous expansions are very, meh.

Maybe instead of just gifting powerful units (although I am extremely open to it) how about being immune to storm damage? Or, for an early Golden age - Barbarians will never attack you, your troops or your cities etc?

Even without much faith generation, by that point I usually have at least a passive source of +4 faith per turn between random tiles, or getting an envoy in a religious city-state. And with builders costing 85-100 faith, there's at least a couple builders I can get during the era with faith. Plus builders/settlers being 30% cheaper with gold means that I'm saving even more during the era. Yeah, obviously it's best if you got lucky and are generating a ton of faith - it can truly be a game-changer.

But I would agree with the above - dark ages need to be a little more dark. The dark age policies can be a little too much, but perhaps the dark age dedications simply need a negative to them. Or even if dark ages just had a generic modifier, like -1 amenity per city or something, would at least give some reason to maybe avoid them other than the loyalty problems.

 

[Ziad]

Pretty sure Phoenicia was balanced with Free Inquiry in mind

 

[Lily_Lancer]

The most annoying thing is that "age” is nothing related to real science/culture development. You are building spaceport, you are making your 50-light year space travel, however it is medival/renaissance outside.

You already researched flight, advanced flight and even stealth bomber, then you get a great people of the age, which have very good ability of foreseeing techs of future eras. He is called Da Vinci and you earn the eureka of flight.

 

[Victoria]

He is called Da Vinci and you earn the eureka of flight.

Well he did draw some flying machines including a helicopter so let’s not mock him too much eh? More of a genius that any of us.
And not everyone rushes the game in this way, play a more balanced growth without killing lots and abusing the system and the era’s work out OK. Many people play this way and the timeline is for the immersive really.

 

[MrRadar]

He is called Da Vinci and you earn the eureka of flight.

Well, that checks out all right, don't you find?

 

[Bibor]

All age types should have their own cards that you *must* pick from, instead of powerful dedications in the upper age echelons

This would lead to mandatory shift in playstyles if you miss the thresholds

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

Agreed. I think you should be forced to pick a dark age policy in a dark age. As it is now, other than the loyalty hit, dark ages aren't that punishing.

What might be even more interesting (if not outright brutal), is forcing players to lose a policy card slot during a Dark Age. It'd be another way to show that your culture has regressed. But that might be too much.

I also agree with kaspergms's comments on Monumentality eclipsing the other dedications. It is too useful to not pick.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I find the ones offering extra tourism in the later eras to make me skyrocket to winning a couple of turns after that comes into effect

 

[MrRadar]

Agreed. I think you should be forced to pick a dark age policy in a dark age.

That could be tricky, if you're still in Chiefdom and get a Dark Classical, which is the most likely scenario. Usually you must work very hard to get a Dark Age afterwards.

What might be even more interesting (if not outright brutal), is forcing players to lose a policy card slot during a Dark Age. It'd be another way to show that your culture has regressed.

Now that's one of the best ideas! But which card would be sacrificed? Probably the economic one. And Golden ages could give you an extra card instead, and Heroic - three cards! The problem is, I got too used to the Dedications

 

[Infixo]

We all know that Firaxis is not keen on putting negative effects to the game, for many reasons. As someone said: Rise & Fall is in fact Rise & Less Rise.
One of my ideas for a mod is to add some simple negative effects to the Dark Age, to make it really a bit dark.
I was thinking about:

• -10% for all science, culture and production yields [faith left out by design]
  
• -20% for all gold yields
  
• -10% city growth [but no food changes]
  
• -1 amenity in each city

The other change would be to make Golden Ages a bit more difficult to get. Now the thresholds are too easy to beat. To balance that yields would be a bit bigger (probably half of what above because Golden Ages will still be easier to get).

What's your thoughts?

 

[Bibor]

We all know that Firaxis is not keen on putting negative effects to the game, for many reasons.

The game doesn't need to be punishing you, but it should be engaging you. That's a quite different thing. Like when/if you realize there are no scientific city-states on the map. You know it will slow down your space win, so you either adapt or change your endgame plans. Perhaps you invest more into different ways of getting science, perhaps you change your plans completely.

Currently there is no motivation to be in a normal age at all. We're either aiming for a golden age or... a dark age. It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Golden Age Monumentality is so good I feel like I am in a dark age after it is no longer an option even though I am in a golden age. A turn before a settler cost me 3,500 faith now they cost 15,000 gold. Workers have the same level of increase in cost and move half speed. What I am trying to say is there is too big of a drop off when we should be improving because of technological advances. The difference between having golden age monumentality and not having it is too great.

 

[Deadly Dog]

That could be tricky, if you're still in Chiefdom and get a Dark Classical, which is the most likely scenario. Usually you must work very hard to get a Dark Age afterwards.

So how about just removing all wildcards from play during a dark age, so only DA policies and others can go into wildcard slots?