The Omega
Completely Insane
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!1 WE must have more ages!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!!!!
More Ages!!!!11!!!!111!!
- Thread starter Amenhotep7
- Start date
T-Money
Conquestador
I think it doesn't really matter about having more ages or whatever, but a LOT more techs like in the DyP mod would make civ a better epic game. I think it would be much better, however, if you could decide whether or not you wanted a mandatory retirement year, so you could have the time to research all those techs before the game ends.
bob rulz
Prince
@Yuri2356-It's kind of hard to go through life without realizing that things fall down when you drop them. After a very short time it becomes common sense. You don't have to know about gravity to know that things fall down when you drop them, you just have to know that things fall down when you drop them. Thank Mister Isaac Newton for discovering why things fall down, but like I said before, you don't have to know why things fall down, it's just something that, you just, you know, kind of notice.
@dh epic-And America didn't really begin to form in 4000 BC, what's your point? Note that that is in response to when you said that the Aztecs didn't go through an Age of Enlightenment (mostly because that time they were, you know, dead). And China actually was in one of it's many thousands of Ages of Enlightenment when Europe was.
@amenhoteps 7's first post-The Information Age and the Modern Age are the same thing. Call it the Information Age, because generally, no matter what age you're in, it's going to be called the Modern Age. And the first age should be the Prehistoric Age, since generally, you're going to call anything that's outdated Ancient (you know, the 1960's).
I do support Ages (and more ages, specifically) but it's not something I would quit the game over if they got rid of them.
@dh epic-And America didn't really begin to form in 4000 BC, what's your point? Note that that is in response to when you said that the Aztecs didn't go through an Age of Enlightenment (mostly because that time they were, you know, dead). And China actually was in one of it's many thousands of Ages of Enlightenment when Europe was.
@amenhoteps 7's first post-The Information Age and the Modern Age are the same thing. Call it the Information Age, because generally, no matter what age you're in, it's going to be called the Modern Age. And the first age should be the Prehistoric Age, since generally, you're going to call anything that's outdated Ancient (you know, the 1960's).
I do support Ages (and more ages, specifically) but it's not something I would quit the game over if they got rid of them.
Jon Shafer
Civilization 5 Designer
But why do people so fervently support the idea of ages to begin with? All they are is a way of grouping techs.
bob rulz
Prince
I have nothing against Ages. I don't really care either way. That's the point I was trying to get across (but I didn't really do it). It doesn't bother me. Ages are an insignificant part of the game, but the fact that Ages exist is also insignificant. If they got rid of them, I wouldn't really notice, and if they kept them, I wouldn't really care.
mitsho
Deity
Some points:
-Renaming of techs and Ages Important, because, for example, a middle age only makes sense for the Europeans. (In my game, I renamed it to Imperialistic Age)
-More Techs We don't need many more techs. We already have pretty much enough, But, in some parts of the game, there need to be additions and changes. For example in the Imperialistic Age-Tech tree (
) you could add things like Theocracy or some techs inbetween gunpowder and invention. Or in the Ancient Age, Chariots should be more used (as they were commonly used then). And to reach this, the Horsemen tech should take a bit longer to reach. We need a tech inbetween there. There are plenty of those examples. But the amount of added techs should not get too big (5-15?).
-More Ages? If we have more techs, we need more ages to fit them in. IF we add them....
mfG mitsho
-Renaming of techs and Ages Important, because, for example, a middle age only makes sense for the Europeans. (In my game, I renamed it to Imperialistic Age)
-More Techs We don't need many more techs. We already have pretty much enough, But, in some parts of the game, there need to be additions and changes. For example in the Imperialistic Age-Tech tree (
) you could add things like Theocracy or some techs inbetween gunpowder and invention. Or in the Ancient Age, Chariots should be more used (as they were commonly used then). And to reach this, the Horsemen tech should take a bit longer to reach. We need a tech inbetween there. There are plenty of those examples. But the amount of added techs should not get too big (5-15?).-More Ages? If we have more techs, we need more ages to fit them in. IF we add them....
mfG mitsho
Matternich
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 140
The game is perfectly long as it is.
The ages are good. One tech tree would lose that popup telling 'we are entering a new age in our development' and initiating a new round of music/leader clothes/city styles etc. Also when would scientific civs have their freebie tech?
I think there was another thread discussing changes to he tech tree here-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94869
which started off as a complaint to civ being too Eurocentric but went on to cover the tech tree as whole. There's some good stuff there.
The ages are good. One tech tree would lose that popup telling 'we are entering a new age in our development' and initiating a new round of music/leader clothes/city styles etc. Also when would scientific civs have their freebie tech?
I think there was another thread discussing changes to he tech tree here-
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94869
which started off as a complaint to civ being too Eurocentric but went on to cover the tech tree as whole. There's some good stuff there.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
I figure ages aren't that important anyway. Ages are a relative thing, and forcing people to all jump over the same hurdles in the same order turns the game into a big race. The game ought to let people truly diverge and research different techs in as different orders as possible (maybe not even discovering the same techs at all).
Ages should just occur naturally. For example, the "medieval" era only exists because there was nothing between the classical age and industrial age. Enlightenment is still a mainly a European event, as much as historians try to fit other histories into its framework. Eras are more names of convenience than real delimiters of history, and aren't particularly important. I'd rather just get rid of them.
Ages should just occur naturally. For example, the "medieval" era only exists because there was nothing between the classical age and industrial age. Enlightenment is still a mainly a European event, as much as historians try to fit other histories into its framework. Eras are more names of convenience than real delimiters of history, and aren't particularly important. I'd rather just get rid of them.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Here is how to solve several complaints on both sides:
Just assume whenever you reach a certain accumulation of techs in certain fields you would get the same screen. Best of all, you would necessarily know when your new age began, so naming the ages would allow for variable number of ages, and more interesting way to retell the history of yoru game.
Currently the game ends at 2050, because that is where the real world will be before technology is too complicated to predict for the end of the tech tree. In civ sometimes everybody has finished the modern age by 1700 and other times have barely entered the modern age in 2000. Instead of making the end of the game 2050, make it 50 years after the first player has researched all the techs are are relevant to the current age. 50 years could be 50 turns or could be less, if you had fast developement.
Just assume whenever you reach a certain accumulation of techs in certain fields you would get the same screen. Best of all, you would necessarily know when your new age began, so naming the ages would allow for variable number of ages, and more interesting way to retell the history of yoru game.
Currently the game ends at 2050, because that is where the real world will be before technology is too complicated to predict for the end of the tech tree. In civ sometimes everybody has finished the modern age by 1700 and other times have barely entered the modern age in 2000. Instead of making the end of the game 2050, make it 50 years after the first player has researched all the techs are are relevant to the current age. 50 years could be 50 turns or could be less, if you had fast developement.
Amenhotep7
Spartiate
I should have mentioned. More ages=more techs.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
Amenhotep7 said:
Not necessarily. The DYP (Double your Pleasure) mod has tons of extra techs without any additional ages.
There is no link between ages and techs. One is not dependant on the other.
douche_bag
can't change my name now
pshhh who needs ages or eras there should be the same eras but 50 techs in each one or is that too much?
Elgalad
Bully!
Voted for more ages.
On another post I said what the ages are for. They establish graphics sets for the various culture groups, they provide coherency to the tech tree, and they act as milestones in your game. I like them for all three reasons and I think the current paradigm of different ages works better than the system in Civ 1, Civ 2, or SMAC/X. That being said, there are benefits to the other methods. SMAC in particular allows for the anachronism that some folks yearn for (rocket science before the wheel) as well as blind research.
I think the debate here is really about something else, rather than whether there should be ages or not. Each of us wants a different 'experience' out of Civ 4. Some builder types want to take their time, have an epic game, tons and tons of techs and milestones that show they are progressing. Others are more interested in the conquest or domination game and find the tech tree(s) of less interest than the things that the techs can make for them (new military units, tactics). Still others rail against the naming conventions used to define the ages and some folks just want more freedom to research disparous techs without so many limitations (rockets before wheels).
I'd like to argue the case that having many more techs and separate trees/age pages does not limit the conquest game, but eliminating them does lessen the builder game. And the names for the ages do not have to be a political issue, there are many ways to define the ages other than actual history. As for the freedom to research... here's a thought - leave the ages, but remove the 'end of age' requirement. This would allow you for example, to leave the magnetism/shipping tree for now and instead research sanitation or nationalism (but not steam power) before you developed frigates. And the graphics would still change as long as one of the final tech trees in that age were complete. It's clunky, but it might work.
It's becoming more apparent to me that a lot of folks don't want to compromise their vision for Civ 4. I'm probably just as guilty as anyone, but wouldn't it be better to have a big/huge game that had a preference screen that let you pick and choose what you Didnt want in it rather than a stripped to the bone game that left you starving for more content? I had incredibly high hopes for Moo3, I kept checking on its status and the forums at Quicksilver for Years. Promises were bountiful, hopes were high, the betatesters raved on and on about how incredible it was... When the game finally did came out (after YEARS of delays), I was shocked at how bad it was. For all the hoopla about how much it would have in it, it was a tiny fraction of the game that Moo2 was. They made a spreadsheet that automatically updated itself. The graphics were gone, the strategy was gone, all that was left was a little hint at what might have been and it probably served as the death knell for a classic series of sci-fi turn bases strategy games. It's my fervent hope that this does Not happen to Civ 4.
-Elgalad
On another post I said what the ages are for. They establish graphics sets for the various culture groups, they provide coherency to the tech tree, and they act as milestones in your game. I like them for all three reasons and I think the current paradigm of different ages works better than the system in Civ 1, Civ 2, or SMAC/X. That being said, there are benefits to the other methods. SMAC in particular allows for the anachronism that some folks yearn for (rocket science before the wheel) as well as blind research.
I think the debate here is really about something else, rather than whether there should be ages or not. Each of us wants a different 'experience' out of Civ 4. Some builder types want to take their time, have an epic game, tons and tons of techs and milestones that show they are progressing. Others are more interested in the conquest or domination game and find the tech tree(s) of less interest than the things that the techs can make for them (new military units, tactics). Still others rail against the naming conventions used to define the ages and some folks just want more freedom to research disparous techs without so many limitations (rockets before wheels).
I'd like to argue the case that having many more techs and separate trees/age pages does not limit the conquest game, but eliminating them does lessen the builder game. And the names for the ages do not have to be a political issue, there are many ways to define the ages other than actual history. As for the freedom to research... here's a thought - leave the ages, but remove the 'end of age' requirement. This would allow you for example, to leave the magnetism/shipping tree for now and instead research sanitation or nationalism (but not steam power) before you developed frigates. And the graphics would still change as long as one of the final tech trees in that age were complete. It's clunky, but it might work.
It's becoming more apparent to me that a lot of folks don't want to compromise their vision for Civ 4. I'm probably just as guilty as anyone, but wouldn't it be better to have a big/huge game that had a preference screen that let you pick and choose what you Didnt want in it rather than a stripped to the bone game that left you starving for more content? I had incredibly high hopes for Moo3, I kept checking on its status and the forums at Quicksilver for Years. Promises were bountiful, hopes were high, the betatesters raved on and on about how incredible it was... When the game finally did came out (after YEARS of delays), I was shocked at how bad it was. For all the hoopla about how much it would have in it, it was a tiny fraction of the game that Moo2 was. They made a spreadsheet that automatically updated itself. The graphics were gone, the strategy was gone, all that was left was a little hint at what might have been and it probably served as the death knell for a classic series of sci-fi turn bases strategy games. It's my fervent hope that this does Not happen to Civ 4.
-Elgalad
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Absolutely. I'm with this in my heart. Although I think a dynamic tech tree could also do wonders for a conquest game -- a civilization who wants to make an endrun for power weapons at the expense of social progress.
The flexibility would truly let people rewrite history, for starters. And it would just open up more divergent strategies -- a very important aspect missing from Civ 3, which has one over-arching strategy for victory.
I vote for a more complex and flexible tech tree, more different options of research, e.g. researching a specific type of unit or rather a generic group ("horse combat") and stuff like that.
No ages needed at all -> just a more flexible tech tree with more replay value and less standard strategies like going for philosophy or the Theory of Evolution to get the Hoover Damn asap.
No ages needed at all -> just a more flexible tech tree with more replay value and less standard strategies like going for philosophy or the Theory of Evolution to get the Hoover Damn asap.
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I completely agree, but many players seem to like a static and predictable tech tree. Just look at how unpopular 'blind research' is among the CFC posters. Modding could be a problem just because they would have to put this in the game engine when the game had a static system.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, plus a blind or dynamic tech tree would be murder to put on those posters you get in the box 
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I do see what you mean. Here is something that would not fix the poster issues, but would fix some players displeasure with blind research. The tech tree would always be dynamic, but players could choose whether it was blind or not and whether it was in-game dynamic or dyanmically created. If it was both non-blind and pre-game dynamic, they could see the whole tech tree for their civ once the game started. It would still always be dynamic and not the same, but then they could plan out their game. Or it could be blind but created before-hand. As for non-blind and dynamic in-game, you could see what all the possible next techs are.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
At the lowest levels, research is pretty close to how it is in Civ 3.
Maybe at the medium levels, research is dynamic, with multiple mutually exclusive paths?
And at the highest levels, research is blind?
Just throwing that out there.
Maybe at the medium levels, research is dynamic, with multiple mutually exclusive paths?
And at the highest levels, research is blind?
Just throwing that out there.
mitsho
Deity
@sir_schwick now, you got me confused...
(but as far as I understand) this system isn't good. The normal player doesn't want to chose their tech tree and they don't want to think long, they just want to play. So NO to choices.
mfG mitsho
(but as far as I understand) this system isn't good. The normal player doesn't want to chose their tech tree and they don't want to think long, they just want to play. So NO to choices.
mfG mitsho
Similar threads
