Why golden ages are a bad idea.

[Algernon Pondlife]

Thank you Magnus. You make my point.

Scrooge: because that is the way it happened; had circumstances been different then it could have been another way.

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

 

[Chronus]

However, special units and golden ages aren't necessarily bad.

I agree. In fact, I am looking forward to them . . . just as long as I have my option to play without them as well.

There now, see? We can enjoy the best of both worlds

 

[RastaMon]

Golden ages and special units are not a bad thing in themselves, IMO, but I wish they weren't tied to Civ names. Wonders are cool, but they wouldn't be nearly as cool if only the Egyptians could build the pyramids, the Americans (or French?

) could build the Statue of Liberty, the English (Scots) Adam Smiths' College, etc.

Special units should be only available to the first civ to discover the relevant technology, the golden age should take effect for civs which achieve some set of parameters - the old WLT?D was fine for me, but it could be made more complex by adding factors other than happiness.

I suspect I will be disabling these for most of my games.

 

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
Can anyone cite me evidence that at some time a society/community was experiencing a particularly successful period and then suddenly found it was rewarded by free bonuses (like manna from heaven)? No! all benefits derived from what they had and what they did and how their neighbours reacted to them.


Well, no. But the whole point of the Golden Age is that it reflects the success of the civ. You get all of the bonus shields and trade because the people are filled with nationalistic pride (ugh) and are working their socks off in the fields and mines and stuff. The trigger is a bit pointless, but you can imagine that such an effect might be caused if the armies of a civ had crushed their threatening neighbours and secured more territory and (perhaps more importantly) peace.

I think that the Golden Age idea is a good one, though the trigger has been set so that the civs stick more or less to their historical counterparts with the timing of the Ages. But Britain had a Golden Age that lasted from the reign of Queen Elizabeth to Queen Victoria and encompassed musketeers, men o' war and artillery - quite a lot longer than however many turns it is in the game. Still, historical accuracy will make the gameplay secondary and you should not strive for it. If nothing can sate your all-consuming desire for historical realism, then you can always play a scenario.

Hmm, I've just realised that although I was addressing Mr Pondlife up to the word peace, it does read as if the whole thing is too. Oops. Thereafter, take a more general you and embrace the brother(and sister-)hood of man!

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[WUM]

An early Golden Age will turn out to be the best for civ3. War will become a harder strategy. A cultural victory will lead to glory. So peace is the way.
The best strategy to me seems this:
build some cities over bigger distances in a circle around your capital.
connect them with the capital.
have an Golden Age as early as possible.
use the extra´s for production of culture-producing buildings/wonders.
make peace asap after starting your Golden Age.
build ambassies afterwards and give away some presents to help your reputation restore.
then build more cities within the circle of older cities.
when the improved AI needs to start a war later in the game for their Golden Age you can either prevent this to happen or use it to get better results at the bargaining table.

I can´t wait to try this...

Originally posted by WarandPeace:
Hmmm, I like to see any of those Civs you've mentioned still alive to build factories when their miserable villages 2000 years ago were encircled by armies of unique archers and wild phalanxes.

Plus what game will there be left for the Babylonians when they are already smaller than their antagonists in the late game, not to mention when Panzer tanks are installed?

Like I said before, use your benefits against the ones who has none. If you can assume Panzer tanks could kill me (Babylonians)in the late game. Then I will assume my archers can rape your civ before they can walk.
Take their cities before culture and nationalities disadvantages kick in. And hog as much land and resource as possible. There will be left for a big WW, not to mention threats of modern devices working against me.

 

[WUM]

i just wish the Golden Age was started by the availability of the special unit.
Wander why Sid+ decided otherwise...

 

[Aristonico]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
Oh the things we can do with words!
"Golden Ages" are subjective judgements applied with hindsight by commentators, politicians and historians.

But, okay, lets put that aside. Can anyone cite me evidence that at some time a society/community was experiencing a particularly successful period and then suddenly found it was rewarded by free bonuses (like manna from heaven)? No! all benefits derived from what they had and what they did and how their neighbours reacted to them.

Oh my Godness, a freudian slip... you know, historians sometimes suffered it as I do

Yes, absolute subjective, I agree... But how can you explain the fast evolution of Rome, the conquest of a great Empire by Alexander or the empire-making of Great Britain or Spain? If the golden age in CivIII can reflect this kind of "events" welcome. If it is only to try to "reproduce historical facts" I can save 70$...
Well, not mana (out of Moses of course) but prestige has always been a great fact in International Affairs. The Spanish Tercios were the best units in Europe for more than 100 years, Napoleon (conscription) and Alexander (phalanx) won against odds, Caesar (legions) was not "left-handed" in dealing with the Galians...

[This message has been edited by Aristonico (edited August 22, 2001).]

 

[Supernaut]

Originally posted by History_Buff:
And a lot of early tribe's golden ages depended on their unique units. Rome became powerful because of its Legions. Babylon survived because it developed its Bowmen. There are exceptions, such as the Americans. But for the most part, the units were the things that helped create the military side of the golden age.

And again with the historical part. Romans developed well because they employed the Legions correctly. When the units became obsolete around 400 AD, what happened?

GOODBYE WEST ROMANS

Maybe early empires, but the only example I can think of is the Greek Phalanx, which allowed them to conquer all before them, until the Roman legion made it obsolete. If you really think the fall of the Western Roman Empire was due to the legion becoming obsolete, then you aren't much of a history buff. It was more due to the fact that no romans were willing to join the legions, so they had to use the barbarian races as mercenaries. Certainly, future golden ages have not been triggered by war (do Firaxis (a French comapny) really think that Germany's golden age was the time when Hitler's panzers were the dominant military unit?), though war has often been necessary for the rising nation to defend its interests against neighbours seeking to do it down (so the tendency of AI civs to gangn up on the human player is not entirely unhistorical

)

I actually think the Golden Age concept is a good one, but at the moment it relies too much on history - as a lot of people have said this is not what I play Civ for (though I am generally glad that it is going to make a difference what civ you play now). Basically I think the name is wrong - not least because Golden Ages can only be indentified in the decadent period after it, and in the game they are more likely to lay the foundsations for a period of even greater glory. Maybe they should be called Foundation Periods ro something like that?

 

[WUM]

??????????
forget the relation between Golden Ages and special units!!!!
The idea of Golden Ages is beautiful. And *something* is needed to trigger it! If you ask me, it really doesn´t matter what that *something* is. I just like the idea and will most certainly enjoy the openings this gives to strategic playing.
However, the war-declaring part is something to overcome.

... though war has often been necessary for the rising nation to defend its interests against neighbours seeking to do it down (so the tendency of AI civs to gangn up on the human player is not entirely unhistorical <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/smile.gif" border=0> )

I actually think the Golden Age concept is a good one, but at the moment it relies too much on history - as a lot of people have said this is not what I play Civ for (though I am generally glad that it is going to make a difference what civ you play now). Basically I think the name is wrong - not least because Golden Ages can only be indentified in the decadent period after it, and in the game they are more likely to lay the foundsations for a period of even greater glory. Maybe they should be called Foundation Periods ro something like that?[/B]

 

[Aristonico]

Golden Ages/Dark Ages
Why not the opposite also? That would bring us to a new system of "evolution" in our Civs. One shield is one shield in a normal period, but in a "dark one" would be a % of it, in a golden age something plus... I don't know... May by just another crazy idea based on the lack of cafeine

 

[WUM]

The idea is as facinating as Golden Ages. I think it´s even more difficult to implement though. When would a dark period start? right after a golden period?
this could balance the game again, but it would definitely spoil my fun!

 

[Aristonico]

The basic problem is in the definition of Golde/Dark Ages-Eras... As any collegue posted before, are really subjective.
I don't like the idea of start a Golden Era because my special unit goes in battle and wins. I find it absolutly nonsensical...
About the beguinning of a Dark Age... What about loosing a certain amount of units, or cities... Or have no new techs for a certain period...

 

[WUM]

Thát period would be dark enough, don´t you agree?
I really don´t need an extra punishment in such a period...

Originally posted by Aristonico:
The basic problem is in the definition of Golde/Dark Ages-Eras... As any collegue posted before, are really subjective.
I don't like the idea of start a Golden Era because my special unit goes in battle and wins. I find it absolutly nonsensical...
About the beguinning of a Dark Age... What about loosing a certain amount of units, or cities... Or have no new techs for a certain period...

 

[Aristonico]

Well, it is just question of dedicate yourself more to "productive stuff" than to "destructive" one... If your civ is in recession, then a Dark Age can start... What is going to trigger it? This is an open discussion !!!!!

 

[goodbye_mr_bond]

Another thing peole haven't seemed to catch on to is this:

Yes, Golden Ages--as they are currently implemented by being tied to civ-specific units--go against the idea of ahistorical realism and thus they're bad. But much more troubling is the fact that they negatively affect strategy.

Allow me to illustrate. Say Player A is playing the Americans against Player B, the Zulus. Now the Zulus won't need to worry about an American GA or special unit for many many turns, whereas the Americans will want to dig in and weather an Impi storm in the early game. No variation on this strategy is possible.
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/cwm33.gif" border=0>

STrategy will be a given, once the different civs on the board have been ascertained. It will be even easier against the AI of course. We'll take advantage of our knowledge of their civ-specific 'strengths' for no other reason than we magically know what they are from the beginning of time! (Military Advisor; "Oh, don't worry sir, those Germans won't be a real threat until they develop their Panzer tanks, but that won't happen for several centuries yet. Let's kick their ass now, before our superior bowmen become obsolete with the upcoming discovery of gunpowder."<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/rolleyes.gif" border=0> )

Why Sid et al think this adds realism to the game I'll never know. It adds the exact opposite. And predictability, to top it all off.

EDIT: spelling

[This message has been edited by goodbye_mr_bond (edited August 23, 2001).]

 

[Chinese American]

If Golden Ages are subjective, why can't the devs have their own opinions on how they are triggered?

In the game, GA only occurs once and lasts only twenty turns. A complete game can last 400-500 turns (going by the Civ2 table.) It can have a profound effect on the outcome of the game, but it mostly depends on how we take advantage of it. This is in correlation to which tribe we choose, which is akin to SMAC, where we chose a faction and capitalize on its strengths to cover its weaknesses.

We should not look too deep for any real-world historical similarities. Civ is a strategy game first and foremost. It is also a customizable game, so GA's could be turned off. Also, I think all the new features can be turned off, such as the categorization of each civ into military, commercial, and other factors. So those who like cookie-cutter civs can still play with them. But then, what is the point? Otherwise, it's just Civ I/II with updated graphics.

I guess those who go by the pacifist route can be SOL and never get the GA. However, I find that it is almost impossible to play through a whole game and not be involved in a skirmish, even in OCC games where conquest is not an option. AI will attack you eventually, especially if playing against six other civs. Besides, GA is not the be-all and end-all of civilization. It could be if you let it. If you can win the OCC, I don't see why you can't win without GA.

I, for one, look forward to these UU. Some say that you shouldn't know ahead of time which unit is unique to which civ. But we already know from the manual what techs we can research and what units and improvements we can build. You can even read the Civilopedia and peek at rules.txt. I don't think the devs put in new features to simulate realism, but to allow the player more choices and more strategies, and above all, more fun. We can only trust that Firaxis made the UU and GA (and Civ3 as a whole) strategically fun!!

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

by Chinese American

We should not look too deep for any real-world historical similarities.

If you mean in terms of specific incidents or attributes to named societies, then you are absolutely right.....

Civ is a strategy game first and foremost

..... oh no no no! First and foremost civ is about how societies develop politically, economically, technologically and in relation to one another. Of course it is a strategy game; the subject is strategic in nature. But it is not an abstract game, it is not a wargame, it is not a transport management game, etc.

still Chinese American

but we already know ... what techs and research ... units ... improvements

now there is an area that could have been improved for civ 3. That would have been a major gain over civ 2 and would have been realistic appropriately.

Reading all the recent replies I'd like to slightly change my earlier suggestion. You could have some (not major) benefits on-board from a Golden Age argued (thank you Rastamon and Duke 'o York) as a slight increase in efficiency beyond the graph as a consequence of a society's "comfort" with itself. But it has to be hard to achieve, not just something on the tech tree, more like a set of threshholds to do with size and hapiness and comparison with near neighbours and combination of well balanced (ie not just warmongering) tech achievements.

Having said that I still feel it is a bit of a concession and the advantage has to decay fairly rapidly even if the trigger remains in place, or it becomes absurd.

As for linking it to the special units ... well the special units are an abomination. And to answer another misconception, special units are utterly unhistorical despite appearances. Military tecniques etc. always develop out of a combination of research and experience. So some civ arbitrarily obtaining that kind of advantage just because of its name is a total contradiction of the world I know. You really must understand the difference between historical process, which is what the game is about, and historical labels, which at best are there for atmosphere.

Duke 'o York suggested a rather long British Golden Age. Interesting. There was no Britain in the time of Elizabeth the so-called first. She was an English Queen. But even more curious the period seems to encompass the civil war and the Jacobite risings all of which at the time brought the country (England) virtually to its knees and out of which were periods of painful recovery.

As for Victoria. Have you never read Dickens' descriptions of life in Victorian Britain?

------------------
Nothing is too wonderful to be true

[This message has been edited by Algernon Pondlife (edited August 24, 2001).]

 

[Aristonico]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
..... oh no no no! First and foremost civ is about how societies develop politically, economically, technologically and in relation to one another. Of course it is a strategy game; the subject is strategic in nature. But it is not an abstract game, it is not a wargame, it is not a transport management game, etc.

Absolutely agree... I think exactly the same. The only problem is that the AI looks sometimes to play a wargame more than a "civilization" one. At the end the only sure way to win is to play it in a kind of wargame style. You produce tech improvements and build up your city only to have better military units... And that I don't like. I just wait for the new victory conditions and to see how those affect the AI strategies...

And I don't like the "special units" tied to any civ... Our civs must (are) like a white sheet of paper: we write it, but we don't need to repeat the same story two times

 

[Chinese American]

You can remove all historical allegories and Civ will be same strategic game in the end. We can see by the examples of creative mods and scenarios by Civ fans which have nothing to do with the evolution of civilization. Any historical facsimiles merely form a setting in which players can delve into without feeling like they're playing chess or some board game.

The special units are there to contribute strategic options; you can turn it off if you don't like them. There are some truths as to why some units are considered legendary and others just plain. We've heard of, for examples, US Marines, Spanish Armada, and Roman Legions, because they were head and shoulders above the rest. You might think they are no different from veteran or elite units, but the fact that they were distinctly mentioned in high school history books makes them special enough.

 

[boca]

There are some truths as to why some units are considered legendary and others just plain. We've heard of, for examples, US Marines, Spanish Armada, and Roman Legions, because they were head and shoulders above the rest. [/B]

Yeah, but why all the special units have to be offensive? Why there isn't a special merchant or diplomat? Or scientists? or Artists?