How do people feel about the Era mechanics? I honestly can’t work our if I like them or not. A well placed early or mid game Golden Age and the right dedication can really open up the game if you’ve prepared for it. But golden ages can pretty dull outside of dedications or edge cases. Personally, I’d like Golden Ages to have a bit more of a downside so getting them was more of a trade off (currently the only trade off is maybe being more likely to get a dark age). I really enjoy Dark Ages, and the Dark Age Cards are very powerful and fun. I also like how golden ages and dark ages have a sort of rhythm, where golden ages are about expansion (extra loyalty and certain dedications), and dark ages are about consolidation (reduced loyalty and certain dark age cards that really encourage consolidation). Earning Era Score can sometimes be fun at the edges, eg holding off clearing a barb camp or taking a T1 government to guarantee a Dark Age. But often it feels a bit repetitive (sigh, time to gold buy a galley), or quite RNG, although I do also like how Era Score does buff certain mechanics through the back door - eg City States and Suze is more important, which makes CS quests (even for non-science or culture CSs) more important and Amani is more important, etc. Meh. Yeah, overall it’s okay. I feel like the number of dedications are too limited. We should be choosing out of 5 dedications not 4, with the fifth maybe being tied to diplomacy. I also don’t like how you always start in a neutral era. Don’t know how to fix that - I guess you could randomnly start in a dark, normal or golden age, but perhaps that would be too rng. I also really can’t stand the Medieval Era auto World Congress. I just inwardly grown every time the WC just pops up asking me which unit should get +5. But that’s more a gripe about how the WC has been implemented. Thoughts?