Playing each era as a scenario...

[Nikox]

Playing each era as a scenario and the whole game as a campaign can give several gains.

- Map size. You don't need the whole word map in the first era. Like in the Rise of Rome scenario you can see (and you need) just part of it. When the era change the map change too keeping just the most impostant town you had.

- The point gained in each section became more important. Changing the map you'll spend the amount of culture, power, land conquered to keep the cities, the units and the buildings that can translate in the next part of the game.

This will improve the playing alone game and the chance to add future eras as part of a campaign.

 

[eddie_verdde]

it's not a bad idea...but it should be optional...most players would inevitably feel nostalgic about the classical mode...

also, your idea could go even farther...if the game starts with a city, how about if the first "scenarios" involved only city-managing, with lots of micromanagement of no more than a few cities...as your civ grew, though, and as you came across new civs, you would leave micromanaging to city/province governors and focus on more global and significant issues, such as diplomacy, conquest, expansion, trade and everything else...

 

[Nikox]

it's not a bad idea...but it should be optional...most players would inevitably feel nostalgic about the classical mode...

also, your idea could go even farther...if the game starts with a city, how about if the first "scenarios" involved only city-managing, with lots of micromanagement of no more than a few cities...as your civ grew, though, and as you came across new civs, you would leave micromanaging to city/province governors and focus on more global and significant issues, such as diplomacy, conquest, expansion, trade and everything else...

Good reply!

I think is in the meaning of this forum to start from an idea and develope it till it can become an usefull one.

More about your suggestion: in this way many buildings or wonder can give an usefull help before they'll become obsolete. Often you choose to don't use city/province governors as you scare it spend energy for items what become soon or later obsolete, but in this way they can be anyway usefull, at least to gain money or points to spend in choosing what will cross in the next era.

 

[Seriphyn]

it's not a bad idea...but it should be optional...most players would inevitably feel nostalgic about the classical mode...

also, your idea could go even farther...if the game starts with a city, how about if the first "scenarios" involved only city-managing, with lots of micromanagement of no more than a few cities...as your civ grew, though, and as you came across new civs, you would leave micromanaging to city/province governors and focus on more global and significant issues, such as diplomacy, conquest, expansion, trade and everything else...

Damn right! Because I can't settle into my games quickly (so I change games a lot) I spend most of the time playing in the ancient ages and, as you say, it gets nostalgic.

But in conquests, you get a few scenarios which starts you in the different eras. But its a bit awkward, because there's so many resources to monopolize, and building takes a while (20 turns for a riflemen) because your supposed to be established by the time you get there.