stealth_nsk
Deity
I think it depends on the map size. on standard it's usually enough.
Update 1.3.0 is on the horizon + a message from the devs!
- Thread starter FXS_Sar
- Start date
I don't quite get that short, but it definitely ends 20-40 turns earlier than antiquity, and there's still fun left in the era if it could stretch a little more. I don't think it helps that the tile requirements are a lot easier now with some of the balance changes of the last few patches, and relics are super easy too, you can have both of those done way early which really pushes the era quickly.
Fooled me with that antiquity start bug lmao
You know what I realized would be interesting? If you could decide to flag your submarines as raiders like Privateers in Modern but with a consequence for attacking neutral ships, traders, and tiles. I mean you’d probably need to add a torpedo boat too that is earlier to get a bit more of that utility but just a thought
I hope they add some quests or narrative events where you discover someone is pirating and possibly trigger a DoW (sort of like the archaeological plunder event in the modern era)
The problem is when it’s always the same 2 that you complete. That means that these are two easy or the others too hard. The problem in current exploration is that you can complete 3 paths with ease and in practically every game, while one needs effort and planning to complete in time (in many cases at least). Just requiring more relics or tiles with 40 yields doesn‘t make it more fun or engaging though.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,810
If they're on the right track with changing the legacy paths to "open up the game and provide many new paths your empire can follow" (IMO the biggest issue right now), perhaps this issue solves itself.
That's why I'm in favour of lowering the bar for economic legacy, rather than extending the age. And frankly, economy in antiquity and modern is just as much of a default completion as exploration culture and science are.
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 919
It always titillates my OCD that there are 6 attributes, but only 4 legacy paths. And while the Military legacy path could very close to what an Expansionnist legacy path would be, the Diplomatic one is the clear outlier. No doubt they're cooking a Diplomatic victory for a future DLC, but it's quite clear as day. Especially since it wouldn't be that difficult to forge those new legacy paths:
Diplomatic Legacy paths:
- Antiquity: Code of Hammurabi (have 6-9-12 social policies slotted in your government)
- Exploration: Lingua Franca (have 4-6-8 city-State suzerainty bonus; join a new Endeavour, "Pareage", where you share the suzerainty bonus of your mutual city-States)
- Modern: Society of Nations (gain points each turn for each city-States you're sovereign, each Endeavour you supports, and 3 points per turn if you finished the Manhattan project. Once you stored enough points, you gain a unique sanction, "Strongly Worded Letter", that forces an opponent to stop all of their wars. You end the age when there's no war in the world).
- Antiquity: Metropolis (have 20-30-40 population points in your capital)
- Exploration: Middle Kingdom (have 40-60-80 population points in your empire; populations in distant lands count for double; populations converted to your religion count for double)
- Modern Age: well, here, I got no idea... but something could be done about it!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 19,062
I don't even need more legacy paths, I just want more ways to earn points for the legacy paths that exist, so I don't feel railroaded into doing the same things each game
Just thinking off the back of what someone else said earlier; I think the current interaction between completed legacies and age progression contributes to the problem, massively.
Specifically, it's strictly linear, and on global scale. A civilization completes cultural path? 5-10-20. Another civilization completes a cultural path? 0-0-0. Same civilization completes science path? 5-10-20. A different civilization completes it instead? Also 5-10-20. So you end up always going for culture in exploration, because, hey, someone will anyway, so it's free, might as well. I think that should be changed. For example, if all civilizations in the world only completed one legacy path, make it 5-5-10, even if they're all different paths. Once any cilization progressed two paths, the points from their second one become 10-10-20. Their third one is 10-20-40. And lastly, completing all four is 20-40-80. Put different, if every civilization in the world only completes two paths, without touching the other two at all, you get to play for 140 turns. If anyone does three fully, that shaves it down to 70. Doing all four is borderlin eimpossible without extremely heavy meta-gaming; the first two steps already take you down to 10 turns left.
That would push the games to feel different. If your goal is to build overseas colonies and heavy treasure fleets, you invest your population into rural tiles and your production into armies. Missionaries and specialists are now detrimental to your objective; if others get them, that's fine, that's their empires and their chosen paths, and because each of the empires is strong in some area, but none of them are strong in them all, the era gets to play out. As things stand, I reckon we are all now completing culture and science every time, because that's the ones AI will do anyway, and we also try to do military and economic sometimes, if we feel like it and the map allows it.
Yzman
Deity
Not a problem since it would be optional and people would be choosing that.
You could also maybe change the math entirely - instead of starting at 200, and counting down when the first person completes a step, maybe you start at 350-400, but just turn it into any step along any path, for any civ, counts as 5 points, with a bonus 5 for completing the path. So each player in the game can potentially shave up to 80 turns off the counter if they completed all 4 paths, but basically the total progress of everyone along every path determines how long the age is. You'd have to figure some math based on average game progress to know at what level to start it at, but that could be an option too. It would be similar in some ways to your suggestion, where total progress counts, not just the most advanced. In either case you just have to fiddle with the numbers to see what balances with the length you want.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I wrote it in other threads, I don't think legacy paths should speed up age progress at all. It forces players to delay LP completion, which is metagame and goes against the normal flow of the game. If there will be no effect on age progression, LPs would feel much more natural.
I do think you need something to alter the age length - if every age was a fixed 120 turns, for example, that would be very jarring. But you could add some other way to make sure the game era can adjust to what people are doing, sure.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think future techs and civics could speed it up more.
this of course likely means ages stay as they are. no mention of trying to do away with the gaps between ages. Which is, I believe the single biggest cause of bad reviews on Steam. If Firaxis just lets people choose any civ from start to finish, I expect that might raise the review score by to 60 percent or so. If they introduce a mode without gaps between ages and without resets, coupled with that single civ - I'd expect the reviews to shoot up to over 75 percent.
And statistically, 97% of statistics are made up on the spot
Do you have anything to back up that claim? From what I have seen its around 50/50. People tend to dislike both in equal measures.
My post did not contain statistics. Just a prediction on future review scores. Which is expressed in percentages on Steam. It's blatantly obvious that was a personal opinion, not a claim to be backed up with anything. (how can there be usable and not questionable data on a speculative future event)
Even if it is 50/50 like Kumbao says, it's still a huge deal. But, of course, implementing one leader through the ages is far, far easier to do than redesigning the game so resets and game gaps are not present. I get the low hanging fruit. But implementing their solution won't get the reviews anywhere near 70%. Again, a personal opinion.
Even if it is 50/50 like Kumbao says, it's still a huge deal. But, of course, implementing one leader through the ages is far, far easier to do than redesigning the game so resets and game gaps are not present. I get the low hanging fruit. But implementing their solution won't get the reviews anywhere near 70%. Again, a personal opinion.
Last edited:
Similar threads
