So are Normal Ages the worst?

[Archon_Wing]

Golden Ages have bonuses, while Dark Ages have those cool special policies and you can go into a heroic age next time. If loyalty is not an issue because there is space or you just killed people nearby, it seems like it'd be better to avoid a normal age if you can't get a Golden Age, unless of course, you're in the middle of fighting.

 

[Trengilly]

Yep you summed it up perfectly - the last thing you want is to be stuck in a Normal Era.

In the event that a dark age causes some loyalty issues - you just go to war and remove the issue.

 

[iammaxhailme]

Yeah, normal ages are bad to get. They should buff it somehow. Or more accurately, make dark ages a real burden

 

[bonafide11]

I rarely ever use those Dark Age policies. Too many negatives with them. And when I’m warmongering I hate having newly conquered cities flip, so I would prefer a normal age.

 

[Trengilly]

And when I’m warmongering I hate having newly conquered cities flip

Conquering faster tends to solve the flipping issue. But I don't always use the Dark Age policies - you have to be setup to take advantage of them. But slingshoting into a Heroic Age is pretty fantastic.

 

[WillowBrook]

I finally got my first dark age yesterday, and the policy that gives extra food and production to internal trade routes is pretty nice as long as you're not planning you settle any more cities.

I'm looking forward to my first heroic age, although my current game may end before I get out of the dark age.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I just had my first Dark (and Heroic!) age as the Zulu. First off, it was exhilerating when the Heroic Age hit catapulting me forward. Eventually the novelty will wear off but that was FUN. I didn't use the bonus to fighting but no heal card- but I should have. I agree with the OP... Golden Ages are great but Dark Ages can be leveraged AND lead to spectacular Heroic Ages. Normal Ages don't have much to offer. However, I was playing on Emperor and the Loyalty hit might be worse at higher difficulties.

 

[Disgustipated]

I rarely ever use those Dark Age policies. Too many negatives with them. And when I’m warmongering I hate having newly conquered cities flip, so I would prefer a normal age.

Glad I'm not the only one. I don't like dealing with the loyalty problems from dark ages. I want at least a normal age if I can't get golden. Only time I don't mind a dark age is classical since there usually aren't too many nearby cities.

 

[TomKQT]

So far I wasn't really getting much out of golden ages. I almost never could pick a dedication, because none of the bonuses sounded like a big deal, especially in the earlier aras.
Ages for me are quite a let down, Ibwas expecting more. The only noticable effect is the visual and for this I hate the dark age, it is too dark and it hurts my eyes.

 

[aguliondew]

The late game golden age bonuses are nice. Heroic age bonuses are very powerful. Normal age is just so-so. Dark age need to have more of a negative impact instead of just loyalty. Normal ages are suppose to be normal game play. Things are suppose to get interesting, when a dark, golden, or heroic ages happens

 

[kaspergm]

I agree with what others have said, but I don't really like the whole Heroic Age mechanism. It feels a bit contrived, and the fact that you need to actively aim for a Dark Age to get a Heroic Age causes a lot of gamey situations where you have to postpone era scores to have it line up. I'd rather have worse Dark Ages, harder to earn Golden Ages and then Heroic Age being a super hard to earn age where you need perhaps double the score you needed to earn a Golden Age. They can tone Heroic Age down if they want, i.e. make it only two dedications instead of three.

 

[Zenstrive]

Well, you love dark ages until you're in renaissance time and the AI have their cities near you and your cities are flipping right and left.
Conquering during dark ages give you no other way but razing the cities you get each time because their loyalties would be SO LOW.
This makes me don't want to pursue domination victory. It's an Anti-Victory in a game about civilization.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

Classical Normal Age is better than Dark I guess.

In Other ages
Dark~=Heroic>Golden>Normal

 

[Jackanape]

You can definitely conquer during a dark age, but you have to be able to take 3 cities within half a dozen turns, and get your governors in place. Especially Amani who, if promoted, puts pressure on your own cities as well as others.

I actually did this a few days ago, in an invasjon i was sure would lead to a litany of flipped cities. Since I was able to come in so hard, I actually gained a three city foothold before I knew it. All
during a dark age.

 

[TomKQT]

I've played only three R&F games so far, but in all of them it appeared to me that golden ages are too easy to achieve. In the first game when my first two ages were golden, I decided to try and go for the achievement "3 golden ages in a row". In reality, ALL my ages were golden (5 or 6 in row, I don't remember anymore, and often with a huuuuuge overflow).
When I wanted to try the dark age in my second game, I had to actively go for it and then I got heroic and a row of golden ages.

The whole system feels a little bit weird to me. Normal ages are boring and in my experience hard to get, regardless the name "normal" (boring is ok, because "normal" means nothing special, but IMHO you also should get most ages normal and only sometimes a golden one or a dark one). Golden ages are not so good, because you pick one bonus and I mostly had to choose between something I didn't really need (religious boost) and something I didn't feel like getting much out of (a little bit better eurekas or inspirations). And dark ages? They sound nice, but I have so little experience with them (only ONE so far) that I cannot really decide. I, however, HATE the dark color scheme, there really should be a setting to turn it off.

 

[blackcatatonic]

So far (only 3 completed games, one Prince, two King - make of that what you will) my impression is that Dark Ages aren't dark or punishing enough, and that Golden Ages are too easy to get. Being in a Dark Age should pose real problems for your Civ beyond loyalty concerns (seems easy enough to offset by expanding carefully and using well-placed governors) and warmongering. Deciding to go Dark-Heroic should be more of a risk, and Normal Ages should be the default state rather than something you have to try to avoid.

 

[King Abbas]

Dark ages should give a negative combat modifier, its even historically accurate.

 

[DrJambo]

I've played only three R&F games so far, but in all of them it appeared to me that golden ages are too easy to achieve. In the first game when my first two ages were golden, I decided to try and go for the achievement "3 golden ages in a row". In reality, ALL my ages were golden (5 or 6 in row, I don't remember anymore, and often with a huuuuuge overflow).
When I wanted to try the dark age in my second game, I had to actively go for it and then I got heroic and a row of golden ages.

The whole system feels a little bit weird to me. Normal ages are boring and in my experience hard to get, regardless the name "normal" (boring is ok, because "normal" means nothing special, but IMHO you also should get most ages normal and only sometimes a golden one or a dark one). Golden ages are not so good, because you pick one bonus and I mostly had to choose between something I didn't really need (religious boost) and something I didn't feel like getting much out of (a little bit better eurekas or inspirations). And dark ages? They sound nice, but I have so little experience with them (only ONE so far) that I cannot really decide. I, however, HATE the dark color scheme, there really should be a setting to turn it off.

Agree with this. To me, golden ages are the 'norm' as I have more of these than anything else, and this makes me think the sliding scale is just a little off making it too easy for golden ages and even consecutive golden ages. In the 3 R&F games I've had, I've only had 1 dark age.

 

[UWHabs]

Dark ages should give a negative combat modifier, its even historically accurate.

Yeah, a small combat modifier (-4?) would make sense. I'd also give a -5% or -10% to all yields as well, since you really should have some overall negatives. On the flipside, I think a golden age should have a +5% or +10% to all yields (maybe +5% in a golden age and +10% in a heroic age?). As it stands, if you have no loyalty pressure on you, then there really is no difference between a dark and normal age.

Or, alternately, when choosing a dedication, the dark age dedications need to have a negative to them. So, for example, take Monumentality. That gives you +1 era score for each district. In a golden age, you get a bonus to settlers and builders. Maybe in a dark age you would get -25% production towards units, and all units have a negative combat strength. Maybe Pen, Brush, and Voice in a dark age you get -25% science. So you get a harder choice - maybe one of the dedications would give you the era score to go heroic, but if it came with a large penalty, it might be more challenging to want to pick it.

 

[Scaramanga]

Golden Ages have bonuses, while Dark Ages have those cool special policies and you can go into a heroic age next time. If loyalty is not an issue because there is space or you just killed people nearby, it seems like it'd be better to avoid a normal age if you can't get a Golden Age, unless of course, you're in the middle of fighting.

Normal ages seem boring but I think I'd rather have the open wildcard slot and be mired in the mediocrity.