[poll] Longer ages discussion

[MutilationWave]

So I've been playing with longer ages turned on until my most recent game. I just finished antiquity age, deity, standard speed, with only barb crisis enabled.

For this please keep in mind I've only played standard speed. Longer ages is only 20% longer, but I feel like I had no time for a proper war, even though I got 9 legacy points and five great generals with units for them.

The thing is, would I have absolutely crushed it with 30ish more turns? Sure. But I don't think I would have been so far along at the same point in a Longer Ages game.

Anyone else feel similarly or the opposite?

Is longer ages a

 

[stealth_nsk]

I played most on my games with regular ages, when switched to longer ones. Prior to the last patch it was almost impossible to get economic legacy in exploration, which was annoying. I didn't have enough time with the last patch yet, but I suppose with treasure fleets starting appearing earlier, normal age length should be ok again.

 

[UWHabs]

I don't, because I keep forgetting to select, but I probably should. Although I think to me, the age only ends too early when you snowball and run out of things. Like my current game exploration age ended early because I got through the future tech/civic maybe 2x times each, so yeah, that cuts the age really short. Arguably I was less than 10 turns away from finishing the econ legacy even with a late start to it, I don't know if pushing out the age that much longer really was needed...

 

[m_mus]

I played my first games with longer ages, but I usually ended up with easily completing 2-4 legacy paths and researching both future civics and technologies. This didn't give me the feeling of having to focus or prioritize and left me with the impression that the necessity for strategically relevant trade-offs in my decision-making was gone. So I backtracked to normal length.

 

[Chefofrats]

I have been playing with longer ages exclusively since I first tried it to see what it would be like.

Longer Ancient and Exploration ages feel awesome: the immersion is much greater, for me, yet the pace of the game remains enjoyable (unlike in Marathon mode, which puts me to sleep).

The Modern age is a chore though - I would love to be able to skip it entirely...

 

[Berrern]

My last few games I've been trying Long ages, and I see three big differences:

1. It makes it easier to finish the legacy paths.
2. I typically get through the entire civic or tech tree - with the other one not far behind. I usually end up with 1-3 future techs/civics, even if I try to prevent it (as it shortens the age!).
3. It's much easier to know when the age will end. When all legacy options are done, there's typically 20-30 age points left, which means 20-30 turns, unless you complete a future civic/tech (which adds 10 age points to the progress). This makes it easier to plan late-age objectives, especially wars. The age progress doesn't suddenly skip from e.g. 92% to 100% in a turn, thus effectively ending the possibility of achieving whatever objective you're working on.

The "problem" as I see it is that it makes the game too easy. You'll enter the modern era with huge boosts (especially the bonuses from attribute trees), and it turns the modern age into a yawn.
As such I've reverted to normal ages again. I'm going to try shorter ones next, as that provides an extra challenge - from what I've read it's nearly impossible to finish more than 2 legacy paths, typically you only manage 1!

 

[UWHabs]

My last few games I've been trying Long ages, and I see three big differences:

1. It makes it easier to finish the legacy paths.
2. I typically get through the entire civic or tech tree - with the other one not far behind. I usually end up with 1-3 future techs/civics, even if I try to prevent it (as it shortens the age!).
3. It's much easier to know when the age will end. When all legacy options are done, there's typically 20-30 age points left, which means 20-30 turns, unless you complete a future civic/tech (which adds 10 age points to the progress). This makes it easier to plan late-age objectives, especially wars. The age progress doesn't suddenly skip from e.g. 92% to 100% in a turn, thus effectively ending the possibility of achieving whatever objective you're working on.

The "problem" as I see it is that it makes the game too easy. You'll enter the modern era with huge boosts (especially the bonuses from attribute trees), and it turns the modern age into a yawn.
As such I've reverted to normal ages again. I'm going to try shorter ones next, as that provides an extra challenge - from what I've read it's nearly impossible to finish more than 2 legacy paths, typically you only manage 1!

Yeah, still needs a little balance on it all. Regular ages are still too easy on some legacies, but end too quickly.
-Future tech/civic need to be a more gradual add to the age progress, not a leap forward. Especially if you get a turn where you double up on future techs, or complete 2 legacy paths together. I might start a wonder where the age progress is at 88%, the wonder is only going to take 7 turns, but 3 turns later I complete a bunch of stuff and we're already at 100%.
-masteries maybe need to be more expensive, so you actually make it more of a choice which mastery to aim for, or you can rush to the end of the tree
-legacies need some balance

Another option if possible would be to give maybe 2 levels deep of mastery. So make the first mastery as like a cheap tech, the one that unlocks bridges, gives me +1 food on fishing boats, etc... But then mastery level 2 on techs would be expensive (size of future tech), but would not just be +3 combat strength on infantry, but maybe like +8 or +10 combat strength. If you have a bunch of those ones, with big potential bonuses for hitting them, then you actually get a much bigger decision matrix on how to progress. But something that if I'm deep in a war with a lot of infantry units, maybe it's worth really digging in for the mastery early to give myself a big combat edge, knowing it will cost me towards the end though.

 

[Krikkit1]

My last few games I've been trying Long ages, and I see three big differences:

1. It makes it easier to finish the legacy paths.
2. I typically get through the entire civic or tech tree - with the other one not far behind. I usually end up with 1-3 future techs/civics, even if I try to prevent it (as it shortens the age!).
3. It's much easier to know when the age will end. When all legacy options are done, there's typically 20-30 age points left, which means 20-30 turns, unless you complete a future civic/tech (which adds 10 age points to the progress). This makes it easier to plan late-age objectives, especially wars. The age progress doesn't suddenly skip from e.g. 92% to 100% in a turn, thus effectively ending the possibility of achieving whatever objective you're working on.

The "problem" as I see it is that it makes the game too easy. You'll enter the modern era with huge boosts (especially the bonuses from attribute trees), and it turns the modern age into a yawn.
As such I've reverted to normal ages again. I'm going to try shorter ones next, as that provides an extra challenge - from what I've read it's nearly impossible to finish more than 2 legacy paths, typically you only manage 1!

#3 is something they should fix with age transitions

If getting a legacy milestone/future tech/etc. didn’t give you 10 age progress all at once but was say +1 extra age progress per turn for the next 10 turns…. then that should mean you won’t have the sudden jumps.

 

[Vandlys]

So I've been playing with longer ages turned on until my most recent game. I just finished antiquity age, deity, standard speed, with only barb crisis enabled.

For this please keep in mind I've only played standard speed. Longer ages is only 20% longer, but I feel like I had no time for a proper war, even though I got 9 legacy points and five great generals with units for them.

The thing is, would I have absolutely crushed it with 30ish more turns? Sure. But I don't think I would have been so far along at the same point in a Longer Ages game.

Anyone else feel similarly or the opposite?

Is longer ages a

I feel the same. I'm a peaceful player most of the time, but once had a fun wargame going (I forced myself to go to war), and I just couldn't get it done even though I was playing with long ages.

Also, what does "Is longer ages a [old]" mean?

 

[MutilationWave]

I feel the same. I'm a peaceful player most of the time, but once had a fun wargame going (I forced myself to go to war), and I just couldn't get it done even though I was playing with long ages.

Also, what does "Is longer ages a [old]" mean?

I meant it to evoke the crutch (cane) he's carrying. I'm saying that I think I've been using it as a crutch. I enjoyed this round more without longer ages because I couldn't get everything I wanted.

 

[Vandlys]

I meant it to evoke the crutch (cane) he's carrying. I'm saying that I think I've been using it as a crutch. I enjoyed this round more without longer ages because I couldn't get everything I wanted.

So you're saying the game is better (in your experience) without the longer ages and having to deal with not getting everything you planned for?

 

[MutilationWave]

So you're saying the game is better (in your experience) without the longer ages and having to deal with not getting everything you planned for?

This was after my very first age without longer ages enabled. It felt like a real race against time to get academies and unique quarters up in cities before end of age. I'm used to never missing any legacy points except for wonders, but I fell short on military because my enemy held me off too long.

I can't say for sure I like it better yet but it really shakes things up.

Ashoka WR with Maurya.

 

[Leucarum]

I do like the more competitive - not quite sure when the age will end - elemeny of shorter ages. You can't be sure you'll have time for everything, so you have to pick and choose...

The one thing I will say is that I think eliminating a player pushes the age too far forward though.

 

[Vandlys]

This was after my very first age without longer ages enabled. It felt like a real race against time to get academies and unique quarters up in cities before end of age. I'm used to never missing any legacy points except for wonders, but I fell short on military because my enemy held me off too long.

I can't say for sure I like it better yet but it really shakes things up.

Ashoka WR with Maurya.

Thank you for this perspective! Remember having that in one of my first games, also without longer ages enabled, and it was nice, so maybe I should go back to it.

 

[MutilationWave]

The one thing I will say is that I think eliminating a player pushes the age too far forward though.

I don't understand the reasoning of it pushing the age forward at all.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't understand the reasoning of it pushing the age forward at all.

It’s an accomplishment that indicates someone is reaching the limits of the age.

 

[MutilationWave]

Seems to me like you'd be better off leaving them with one bad settlement instead of eliminating, so you have time to get your other stuff done. Maybe eliminate that settlement on the last turn of the age.

Unless you're competing for lowest turns to win.

 

[Disgustipated]

And I don't like the diplo hit of completely eliminating a player. Seems you'll be hated by everyone for the rest of the game.

I play with longer ages always on. Yeah I realize it can cause some snowballing. I for one, like snowballing. At least a little bit. What's the point of building up my civilization if I can't reap the rewards for it?

And yeah, I have some OCD which causes me to want to get all the legacy paths complete. How can I not? Of course the one that is difficult is cultural in antiquity. Even at my custom difficulty level, I have trouble getting it usually. I often end up at 6/7. I did manage to get it one game with that Emile Bell wonder which the AI doesn't care for. I find with trying to field a large enough army so you don't get demolished, build enough infrastructure to even have enough culture to get through the tree (this can be difficult for me), and often with only 1 or 2 cities it's just near impossible to get that done. Even 3 cities it's a stretch.

 

[evonannoredars]

I've often felt I didn't have enough time in regular ages, but whenever I've turned on longer ages I'm bored and have little to do by the end - those extra 40 turns are way more than I need!

A 110% length option would be neat, though I feel an underlying issue is that the ages are at risk of ending so abruptly at any moment once there's not much progress left, so a fixed ten-turn era ending phase at the end (similiar to civ 6's countdown) to give you time to safely plan how to wrap up would be ideal imo.

Edit: Though also depends how bogged down in warfare I get, an age where I'm constantly at war means I'm way behind by the time the era ends, esp. in Antiquity. Some sorta dynamic slowing down of progress could be handy for that.

 

[Aldor]

I have not played with longer ages so far. I'm curious: Does that option extend the length of the crises too? I wouldn't mind having more time for immersion purposes, but the thought of having to slog through the plague crisis for even longer really turns me off...