[GS] Should in-game events/actions impact on Ages

[Aussie_Lurker]

Just a thought I had. Although previous Dark Ages/Golden Ages do impact on the score required for the next Age, I got to thinking that there could be ways to make the Age system even more dynamic.

Negative Events (Disasters, having War Declared, losing a City to disloyalty) & Player Actions (declaring a Surprise War, changing governments too frequently etc) could increase the number of points needed to stay out of a Dark Age/Normal Age.

By the Same token positive events & player Actions (liberating a city, peaceful annexation of a city, founding a religion, adding a new belief to your religion etc) could decrease the number of point required.

What do you reckon?

 

[Zaarin]

This is what I was hoping for when the system was announced.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I would really like to see the entire 'Era' mechanism rethought, but probably won't see it until Civ VII, if ever.

The problem is that it is both totally artificial and totally Eurocentric. The Eras are entirely a European phenomenon as they are now (and in Civ V) labeled - try finding a Medieval or Renaissance indicator anywhere else in the world: when the Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere during their Renaissance, it plunged the Americas into a catastrophic and devastating population loss: it is now estimated that up to 20% of the world's population died in the Americas between 1500 and 1600 CE. Not quite what is usually meant by 'Renaissance' unless it translates as 'Genocide' in one of the Central American Native languages. . .

I would much rather see 'Eras' or whatever they wind up being called, start dependent on a certain percentage of Civs reaching certain Tech or Civics 'milestones', so that the actual temporal extent of Eras were much more indeterminate. 'Golden', 'Dark' or 'Heroic' Age determination would depend on how much of the New Era's benefits your Civilization can take advantage of: if you are 'way behind in Tech or Civics, you are likely to plunge into a 'Dark Age' - relative to your neighbors.

That also means that some parts of the map, especially a continents or islands map where many Civs have not made contact yet, may be in different 'Eras'.
Which also makes sense: as Europe danced into its Renaissance, China was being conquered by the Mongols - another peculiar definition on 'Renaissance', if you ask me.

The trick is to 'massage' the entire system so that one part of the map doesn't receive a Lion's Share of the Era benefits to the extreme detriment of the rest of the map: see the historical example of what Europe did to the rest of the world since the Renaissance!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I would really like to see the entire 'Era' mechanism rethought, but probably won't see it until Civ VII, if ever.

The problem is that it is both totally artificial and totally Eurocentric. The Eras are entirely a European phenomenon as they are now (and in Civ V) labeled - try finding a Medieval or Renaissance indicator anywhere else in the world: when the Europeans arrived in the Western Hemisphere during their Renaissance, it plunged the Americas into a catastrophic and devastating population loss: it is now estimated that up to 20% of the world's population died in the Americas between 1500 and 1600 CE. Not quite what is usually meant by 'Renaissance' unless it translates as 'Genocide' in one of the Central American Native languages. . .

I would much rather see 'Eras' or whatever they wind up being called, start dependent on a certain percentage of Civs reaching certain Tech or Civics 'milestones', so that the actual temporal extent of Eras were much more indeterminate. 'Golden', 'Dark' or 'Heroic' Age determination would depend on how much of the New Era's benefits your Civilization can take advantage of: if you are 'way behind in Tech or Civics, you are likely to plunge into a 'Dark Age' - relative to your neighbors.

That also means that some parts of the map, especially a continents or islands map where many Civs have not made contact yet, may be in different 'Eras'.
Which also makes sense: as Europe danced into its Renaissance, China was being conquered by the Mongols - another peculiar definition on 'Renaissance', if you ask me.

The trick is to 'massage' the entire system so that one part of the map doesn't receive a Lion's Share of the Era benefits to the extreme detriment of the rest of the map: see the historical example of what Europe did to the rest of the world since the Renaissance!

Those are great ideas, but I guess I am just limiting myself to what is possible within the confines of Civilization 6. I guess I am just advocating for an even more dynamic system than we currently have.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Those are great ideas, but I guess I am just limiting myself to what is possible within the confines of Civilization 6. I guess I am just advocating for an even more dynamic system than we currently have.

Understand. The problem is, it's obvious that Firaxis is 'doubling down' on the current Era system and has no plans to do anything radical with it in Civ VI. We can only speculate on what they should have done in Civ VI, but try to give them suggestions for what they might do better in Civ VII, because a lot of Civ VI mechanics are now 'write offs' - we are stuck with them as they exist, for Better or Worse - or for Barely Acceptable to Wretched.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Understand. The problem is, it's obvious that Firaxis is 'doubling down' on the current Era system and has no plans to do anything radical with it in Civ VI. We can only speculate on what they should have done in Civ VI, but try to give them suggestions for what they might do better in Civ VII, because a lot of Civ VI mechanics are now 'write offs' - we are stuck with them as they exist, for Better or Worse - or for Barely Acceptable to Wretched.

See, I don't consider us "stuck" with the Era system exactly as it is in R&F, & so will continue to advocate for changes until I hear that they have moved on from Civ6 altogether.