Why golden ages are a bad idea.

[Heffalump]

Well, after spending some time thinking since my last post I'm pretty much back where I started: Golden Ages really are a bad idea. They are an artificial construct forced into the game at fairly set intervals without regard to the civilizations they are supposed to reflect. You know the concept has been mishandled when the music tells you that in your "Golden Age", and from a gameplay perspective not in a golden age at all, but losing a war, suffering from famine, stagnating.....

It seems to me that someone at Firaxis said, "hey let's have golden ages!" and shuffled it off to the programmers to find trigger. Well finding a meaningful trigger is definitely challenging. Perhaps because a golden age, in it's true form, identifies a period when a civilization was at it's relative peak. This is not something easily identified at the moment. It comes with the benefit of hindsight.

If they really want golden ages then they should to throw them into the replay feature. With the game, and history, at an end we can somewhat more realistically identify the period when a civ was at it's relative peak. The remainder of the golden age idea should be tossed. I've seen many better ideas much more worthy of inclusion. Unfortunately I'm not very optimistic the idea will be re-worked at this late stage, with the game evidently in beta.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

'nuf said. I've just noticed you are from Alexandria, Heffalump. Well I am too. Alexandria Dunbartonshire. But I don't live there anymore. I hope folks don't think that's why we agree on this

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

 

[Chinese American]

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

Because it's not how it works in the game. You gotta draw the line somewhere or else the game will never be finished. I wish there was wizards and dragons in the game, but it's not going to happen--at least not this time around.

It'll be pretty cool to build travelling bards or wandering rabbis, though, no?

 

[boca]

Originally posted by Chinese American:
You gotta draw the line somewhere or else the game will never be finished.

I guess you're right. Maybe we should star gathering ideas for Civ 4

 

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Algernon Pondlife:
Scrooge: because that is the way it happened; had circumstances been different then it could have been another way.

In the game it is YOU, who sets the circumstances.

------------------
<FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT size="2"><FONT COLOR="green">"Duckland must put an end to war before war puts an end to Duckland". - </FONT c><IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/icons/icon22.gif" border=0>
-- J.Quack Kennedy</FONT s></FONT f>

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Scrooge: I'm glad we agree on that. The way you set the circumstances is by doing the research, developing the economy, relating to our neighbours etc. Just like in real life, applying thought and effort. Not by calling ourselves Romans or Vikings and getting a free bonus just for that - this is the stuff of fantasy and therefore is nonsense in civ.

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

 

[Leonard]

Originally posted by jedi rat:
¡KYou assume that you find and kill those “later benefit civs? My question is: DO you play that game to kill most of you rivals in first 10 turns?¡K¡K
Gentlemen,
I want to provide my personal experience about this question. No affectation, when I play Civ¢º on a small map, I almost occupy all my rivals' cities when I have musketeer. To get the highest score, I won't destroy them at all. Otherwise, I let them survive with ONE city and 1 or 2 citizens live in. To prevent their growth, I will send my army to siege their petty residence. Therefore, their city produce no more food and production and all they can do is to wait for the time pass by and watch my Space Ship be built, having hundreds of future techonologies and make all the tiles to be grassland.
I guess, If I can get militaristic advantage in the middle of game, maybe I can replay this story again.
Just my humble opinion. Thankyou in advance.

 

[Graeme the mad]

Everyone seems to be against golden ages because they mean that your choice of civ affects the way the game is played, not just how you play the game: this is a good thing!!
It works well in aok, no one there plays with it off even though it is an option. It means that it is easier to diversify and have different strategies depending on your civ: your choice affects the game and you must pick a civ you like playing: generally it means more strategy not less. Remember everyone just because you are on an Island and dont have a golden age based on boats doesnt mean you cant build boats (amazing innit

) If you really do want cookie cutter civs you can have them but I really like the idea of the golden age : i think ill play english or french first cos their golden ages are pretty much guaranteed (earlier civs are not) but do not come to late to not count

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

 

[Dearmad]

On a side note- I hope there are ecological problems that result from over terraforming the planet- NOT just in producing big industry- I mean if the original balance of grassland to other terrains is 30% grassland, and after you get going it's up to 50% SOMETHING should happen... not looking for realism here, just game balance.

Maybe godzilla could come and stomp on a city or two...

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

Graeme,

no one disputes the potential for strategic variation. If you read the posts carefully you will see that the issue is that this kind of change is not civ, its just another strategy game and might as well evolve into a war/fantasy/abstract game. You are welcome to it but it leads to there being no new game in the civilization genre and that would be utterly sad.

Leonard,

I find it rather boring when there is no opposition left worth worrying over. High scores are a rather dry incentive most of the time. I would rather be teetering on the edg of extinction and fighting back. Perhaps you are an accountant

Still, everyone to his/her own.

Dearmad,

(name sounds a bit like Diarmid

) That is an excellent idea. Reduction in forests, increase in cultivated areas etc. All potential for ecological change. Don't worry about game balance, this is a reality balance you are proposing. Resource depletion comes to mind in a similar vein.

everyone or anyone,

presumably "cookie cutter" is some clever new metaphor (don't you just love them?), but what does it mean?

It seems to be used derogatorily about people objecting to unrealistic and unnecessary civ specific mods, but no one is saying all start points have to be the same. There is plenty of scope for variation concerning terrain, starting techs, peronality profiles, number of settlers at start, nature and proximity of neighbours, not to mention the goody/scary huts. And since right away you have a wide branching tree of possible strategies it is hard to imagine two civs looking alike after ten minutes of play, never mind after a few thousand years when one of the so called golden ages might kick in.

If anyone thinks that civilization or civ 2 lack variety and replayability on a vast scale, then they must be playing in the dark.

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