Why golden ages are a bad idea.

[ERIKtheRED]

WarandPeace:

I did propose an alternative: golden ages should occur when a high point has been achieved in a specific area.

As for History: I do not want a replication of history, but I do want a simulation of history's processes. My model, in my opinion, does this quite well.

My model allows the Americans to have a golden age before they really existed? Yes, but that is because the game puts the americans in from 4000bc. I would prefer they appear in 1750 so perhaps we can agree that it should be possible that a civil war could sprout a powerful nation at around this point in history.

If you do not care if civ3 has any similarity to history, you can play chess. But civ3 attempts to be a historical simulation, and I believe my proposal would make it more realistic. Whenever people tell me its just a game, that it doesn't matter if it's even vaguely like history as long as the player has control of a collection of cities, I am distraught. I believe that civ is a game of history-- a history you can create, but a history that is consistent with how I know the world works.

Are nuclear weapons not available at the beggining of the game only because this would destroy gameplay? No, because civ is an ever improving attempt to model the path of civilization. If you feel that my model is flawed, explain how. If you feel I am a fool for proposing a model, don't reply at all.

------------------
"Consumerism is slavery by goods."
"The police are not here to create disorder. The police are here to PRESERVE disorder."
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

 

[WarandPeace]

I'll take you up on that Jedi <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/wink.gif" border=0>
We'll get foster's lol
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/beerchug.gif" border=0>
if you believe me, I dont even care about golden age or what not, maybe just for the spice of arguing i suppose <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tongue.gif" border=0>

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.ltolstoy.com/photos/thmbs/t1854.gif" border=0>

[This message has been edited by WarandPeace (edited August 14, 2001).]

 

[Sargon]

WarandPeace has it right about the benefits of early vs. late Golden Ages. You don't have to go to war to gain an advantage, you just have to grow. Your civilization should be growing exponentially, at least in the early game. Let's say you double in size every 40 game turns. An advantage that gives you two more cities early on will be worth as much as one that gives you four cities 40 turns later, or one that gives you eight cities 80 turns later. (Of course, later in the game you might invest in things other than new cities, but the principle is the same.)
A Golden Age early gives you less payoff, but more time to invest it. A Golden Age later gives you a greater payoff, but less time to invest it. It all balances out, which is the trademark of a Sid Meier game.

 

[Scrooge]

This is how the whole idea of the Golden age must have sprung up at Firaxis:
Developer 1: Hey, I'm bored, let's do something really stupid for a change huh huh
Developer 2: Ye, ye, stupid, ye, let's do Golden Ages as we did it ye!

I mean, all, that's been said before (that this concept is backwards and millitant) I have two thoughts to share:

1. Did you notice that Golden Age (regardless of how it's triggered) will occur only once per game? And last a finite no. of turns? As for me it really kills my play style which is based on the old rules of the Golden Age (I try hard to have a very happy population as long as it's possible - "the city is holding a celebration in your honor my Lord"). 75% of cities having a celebration for min 5 trns (10trns for Diety lvl) would constitute a Golden Age for me, and then I would be happy to reap the rewards (be it increased morale, commerce, science or - especially - culture). And try hard as hell to keep it up as long as is possible.

2. How come the Firaxis team discards so easily some great concepts that they already have explored? If they want to make a nation distinguishable, they can allot other stats, it has already been so beautifully executed in SMAC. There is really a difference between Spartans and Gaians. And the special units are only an outcome of these special stats.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 14, 2001).]

 

[Master of Ceremonies]

I agree with Heffalump's original assessment. I think the Golden Age idea is a good one, but executed poorly.

Let's never forget that Civilization (I, II and III) is a STRATEGY game. We play it for hours on end because we love the strategy involved. I think that too many people are hung up on the historical accuracy issue. Civilization is not a movie - it's a game! It doesn't have to be historically accurate. That said, it does make for a better game when the game is historically accurate as long as it doesn't affect game play.

For this reason, I feel that what aught to be done with "Golden Ages" is to make them user-selectable. A single twenty turn "burst" selectable at any time during the game that you choose. It could work similarly to what we do now with revolutions - just pull down the menu and select "Start Golden Age".

Without this user-selectivity, what will ineveitably happen is that we're going to figure out which civ has the best timed Golden Age and we'll all clamor for that civ in multiplayer games.

After all, isn't the premise of the game to take YOUR civilization and control it the way YOU want to? Why be constrained with historical limitations.

 

[Pembleton]

I don't know if someone has already mentioned this, but just turn the option off. I will be playing without special units the first time(s) through.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Why are all you people saying your playing with special units and golden ages off cos their so bad

Their not their great - it actually gives you a differnece in strategys in civ3 from the word go - great idea.
For instance Dd you want to pick the babylonians who though they get a golden age early may not get it due to lack of civs nearby or wait ages for the russian one which u r likely to get but not for ages - see different styles of play, determined by civ.
iF u r behind in tech you may not get it at all - so youd better be prepared for that

The golden age is a fantastic idea and nearly makes up for nowonder videos

It worked well in AOE and the UU's worked well in AOk - now I know these were not turn based but even so I think this adds great depth to the game.
If you dont want to have them on fine, dont, but I think your as stupid as those people who turned on simplified comat in civ2 because it was a change - give it a chance people - and it wil be great

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

[This message has been edited by Graeme the mad (edited August 14, 2001).]

 

[Flak]

Originally posted by Pembleton:
I don't know if someone has already mentioned this, but just turn the option off. I will be playing without special units the first time(s) through.

The only problem with this is that now I don't get any Golden Ages. And I might actually deserve one! If I've built up a beautifully crafted, powerful, advanced and stable civilization, I want a Golden Age. I played hard and I earned it!

 

[Graeme the mad]

IF your powerfula and everything you already have one

------------------
Never underestimate the power of stupid people

 

[jedi rat]

Hey WarandPeace I knew that you are a good man and after "few ones" the 'peaceful' side will take over the 'war' one. I do not care much about all them as well , but I will disable those ..... golden ages!!! hehehe

Sorgon.
I like your concept and I thought about that, but... I am not so sure if the "balance" "invest now-profits later" and vice versa will be ...'balanced'.
Anyway time will show if that is a good option or not.

 

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Squirrel:
The following is taken from www.civ3.com:

Notice that it sais "...against ANOTHER CIV." Can we take this to mean that beating a barbarian is not enough, but that we actually need to declare war to trigger the golden age? Or are barbarians regarded a civ?

As it currently stands, defeating a barbarian unit with your special unit does not trigger your Golden Age. I don't know if there are plans to allow other things to trigger your Golden Age, but I've certainly passed the suggestion on to the development team.


Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

 

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Just FYI in case folks are confused about this:

AFAIK, "We Love the King Day" is still very much alive and has not been replaced by the "Golden Age". WLTKD is city-specific and can happen repeatedly, whereas the Golden Age is an empire-wide bonus that you only get once.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

 

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS:
Just FYI in case folks are confused about this:

AFAIK, "We Love the King Day" is still very much alive and has not been replaced by the "Golden Age". WLTKD is city-specific and can happen repeatedly, whereas the Golden Age is an empire-wide bonus that you only get once.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

Yes, but it still in no way relates to the actual state of your nation, but is triggered by combat -- read my lips -- an aggression against another nation, and I'm not THAT trigger-happy. This is sanctifying war, militizing the game, loosing it's spirit (combat is extension of diplomacy therefore a tool) and I find it hard to stand up to. The concept is up on it's head.

Golden Age also provides your nation a BONUS, a boost to trade, science and culture -- for what? An aggression? I simply can't find that civilized. This is barbaric. Let's change the game's name to Barbarians III.

If I'm a good ruler, keep my people happy happy, scientifically go where no one has gone before and a cultural tycoon (Golden Age) I want this period to last as long as I can keep it up, not just 20 turns; and if my nation lives in hovels and defect over "the wall" during an evening walk with the dog, and I tell them "Now you've got the Golden Age, enjoy, 'cause you'll have it no more" -- that's Goebbels propaganda. Thank You.

Golden Age is a beautifull concept (just poorly executed) and should be a vector of We Love The King Day. Besides, I remember the times, when you got a score bonus for extended peace!

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 14, 2001).]

 

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Scrooge:
Yes, but it still in no way relates to the actual state of your nation, but is triggered by combat -- read my lips -- an aggression against another nation, and I'm not THAT trigger-happy.

Does this mean that using a special unit on defense against aggression will not trigger a golden age?

 

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Pembleton:
Does this mean that using a special unit on defense against aggression will not trigger a golden age?

Not at all, since that constitutes a military victory by your special unit against a non-barbarian unit. This is a perfectly valid "Golden Age" trigger.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

 

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS:
Not at all, since that constitutes a military victory by your special unit against a non-barbarian unit. This is a perfectly valid "Golden Age" trigger.

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

So, now it means, that I have to provoke my neighbor into aggression to trigger Golden Age? Say, a neighbor nation, with which I've been enjoying years and years of happy co-existence? And what if, by some chance, through extended diplomacy, I have no enemies? So that HE attacks me?
Like "make a slight navigation error" with my F-15?
That's still Guns for Butter philosophy. As much as I like the Golden Age Bonus, the concept "as is" simply cannot defend itself.

Originally posted by allan: (Concepts Section)
... The beauty of civ is that you make your own civ, totally undictated by their "counterparts" on far-off earth. Whoever came up with this ridiculous (IMHO) idea of "special civ-specific units" just didn't get that concept, or else limited his own play to the earth map (BOring!).

Please see related thread in #Concepts

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 14, 2001).]

 

[Pembleton]

If it bothers you that much Scrooge, then just turn golden ages off. I already mentioned in this thread that I won't even be playing with special units, although I will play with ablities.

 

[jedi rat]

Pambleton
Hm... I do not why but I have this feeling that I will play eith special units but no spec abilities - if it is possible - PLEASE!!!
BIG YELLOW SMILE!

 

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Pembleton:
If it bothers you that much Scrooge, then just turn golden ages off. I already mentioned in this thread that I won't even be playing with special units, although I will play with ablities.

<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/supersaiyan.gif" border=0> If you turn it off - it's fine by me, but:

1. I like to play with all my options ON
2. I hate games that have logical flaws
3. My style of play is to have max happiness, my nation <u>thrives</u> for a Golden Age
4. This is not some game option (like turn music off) -- Golden Age is a major national event.

So yes, it does bother me, because I hate half-by-products. Games that look good only in paper ads or demos or boxes. With mega PR and publicity just to turn up to be mega flops. Games, which whet my appetite only to disappoint me with something really stupid after the time (and money) that I have to invest in them. And I've seen too many such flawed products lately and felt cheated. Haven't you yourself?

This is not like the aircraft: looks good - flies good; it's like a Civilization III: looks good - plays awesome.

Sid Meyer is a brand. Since the F-15 Strike Eagle eons back in time (POLL > Who remembers it?). I'd like to keep it that way.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2">"Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to Mankind"
- J.F.Kennedy </FONT s></FONT f>

[This message has been edited by Scrooge (edited August 15, 2001).]

 

[ShadowWarrior]

This is my own idea of how Golden Age should be executed. I wrote this idea in response to Eric and Allan's post in the Civ 3 ideas/suggestion forum and have copy and pasted it below.

<<
Eric and Allan:
I think both of your ideas are great and they could be combined.

Basically, Eric believes that a civilization's personality is based on what is emphasized at the very birth of that culture. For example, a civilization is militaristic because it tends to create military units since the dawn of its civilization.

Allan however believes that the character of any culture is determined by the geographical location of that culture. Therefore a Mongolian culture situated on an island should not develop powerful horse archer armies, but powerful navies. By the same token, if the British was not situated on an island, but on the steppe, then the British should develop powerful horse archers, not navy.

Perhaps, designers should somehow combine both ideas so that the personality of any given culture is based on both what that culture tends to emphasize and that culture's natural surrounding.

Golden Age is then reached when the personality of the culture is manifested in its action.

For example, I am playing as Chinese, situated on an island. I wish to expand out as soon as possible, so early on the in the game, I tend to emphasize navy. Navy and navigation therefore becomes an integral part of my culture's character.

Chinese Golden Age is reached when I build have a vessel fleet much bigger than the other civilization, when I used my fleet to chart much of the world map and destroy other civilization's ships. Then for the next twenty turns or so, all Chinese ships gets bonus movements.

As another example, I am playing as the Mongolians, situated on a continent full of resources of all kind. Secondly, to the East of me is China, and to the West of me is Roman.

My natural surrounding is advantageous to me because my empire contains plentiful of resources and my empire's position makes it inevitable that all merchants coming from China to Rome must go through me first. Therefore the my natural surrounding compels me to emphasize economic and commerce.

My Mongolian Empire's golden age is reached when my net export is substantially greater than that of other civilizations, and when prosperity level in my empire reaches a high point. For the next twenty turns, I get extra revenues from taxes, and the my resource shields and food production in every tiles are increased by one.

I am basically repeating Eric's idea, but combining some elements from Allan's idea, and elaborating on it a little more.

Do you think this will work? >>


With regard to the issue of historical accuracy, what the designers are trying to do is trying to create an empire building game that adhere to historical accuracy. For example, the Mongolian special units must have powerful horse archers because that's how it is historically.

What we civ fans want is a game where we can direct the fate of our own civilization. What we civ fans want is to be able to lead the civilization onto a path different from what that civilization took historically. So we don't neccesarily want powerful horse archers for Mongolians. We might possibly want powerful navy instead because the geographical location of the Mongolian culture we play might happen to be on an island, not on steppe.

What we want in a game is therefore logical and realistic simulation of events, development and progression(or regression ), not historical accuracy. Remember, logic is the key here, not historical accuracy.