Golden ages unbalanced?

[TechWins]

a golden age should begin when you achieve a certain level of cultural points.

If you have it this way then you won't have any golden ages towards the begining of the game. Which is not realistic. I don't mind the way the trigger is done to tell you the truth. A way that would be the most realistic is when your cp's per turn reaches a certain average per turn. Instead of having a golden age after 100 cp's is reached you should have it when the avg. of 10 cp's is being earned [just an example, #'s should be much different in the game, whatever is appropiate]. That might be the best way to have the trigger.

All in all I don't really care because the game is going to be great and everyone of you know that but some are afraid to admitt it. It's good that some of you are indenial because we wouldn't have any discussion.

[hetairoi22]

Remember that techs are cheaper early on. If you, while your in your golden age, change to republic, and put 80% trade to science..

I agree that the production bonus is worth much more later on, though.

[Harlan]

"the advantages in production and trade of a golden age in the early times will be negligable and easily surpassed by anyone just by trading with other civs."

Not so. You make trading with other civs sound like a piece of cake, but if the game does it right, it will be hard work. You'll have to build colonies and cities near trade items, build roads to them, defend them, find other civs, establish embassies, develop peaceful relations, have something to offer when you want something, and so on. All that takes up some of your energy that could be spent on other things.

I thought of a possible better trigger, since the details of having culture be the trigger are a bit hard to implement. The tech you need to have to build your special unit - let reaching that be the trigger. The timing should be nearly the same, except this allows peaceful players to have Golden Ages as well. It also eliminates the loophole of holding a unit back from attacking thousands of years from when they should exist. It still gives some flexibility though -within reason - if you want to hold off on having your Golden Age, hold off on discovering that tech.

[Scrooge]

I know, that this topic has been rolled on over before, but since I am new to this (wonderful) site, please let me share my comment on the Golden Ages / CS Units topic. I know I shouldn't, but you ideas / suggestions thread is closed.
----------
The GA “as is” in no way relates to the actual state of your nation, but is triggered artificially 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. This beautiful concept is up on it's head.

Golden Age should provide your nation a BONUS -- 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. I remember the times, when you got a score bonus for extended peace!

And as for triggering the GA by defending with the CSU, 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?

I'm sorry, but I just can't think of any other justification for a Golden Age than people's happiness. Golden Age should happen spontaneously, triggered by high nation's ratings in most key fields of the game (military, commerce, culture, science, happiness etc.), and not be player-dependant (e.g. I say I choose to have my Golden Age NOW). Golden Age should have no time limits (e.g. last so so many trns) but continue as long as trigger criteria (not easy) are met. Also, there should be no limits as to Golden Age counts (like 1 or 7 per game). Prolonged Golden Ages should be sub-goal of the whole game. Civilian population of a militant nation have to be kept happy as much as of non-militant (or probably more).

The WLTKD as Dan said is a City-wide event, gives just +1 coin. Golden Age of my model is a Nation-wide event, a logical outcome of being a wise ruler, would make all cities do something more - like generate more Science and a lot of this new culture thing (VERY IMPORTANT). As you've probably noticed, borders are culture-dependent, so per chance, during a Golden Age your nation given time could assimilate some weaker nearby cities (the new rules).

This is a cultural alternative to military conquest we’ve been waiting for so long!
Please explore the possibilities.

Again the Golden Age trigger should not be easy to meet like keeping 75% of your cities in a WLTKD for 5+random(5) trns on King +-5% per lvl of game difficulty.

The special units have an easy solution. As I've said before, need breeds invention. So IMhO just building (say, 30%) more units of one kind than any other nation makes them user-upgradable to special. This solves the "Mongols on an island" loophole and leaves the player a lot of new options (rellevant threads to be found >click< here and >click< here). Just build what you think is appropriate and read on. Now, with the new "no initial rush" rules it won't be all that easy to have a spec unit fast. Also, this way you can have many types of special units unique to your nation and not only in one time frame. I mean, in the game, you don't have to be ROMANS to have LEGIONS (and a +1 special legion like the Hoplites)

Example - when you build (say, 30%) more triremes than any other nation (because you're on an island, need tritremes and doing well), this unit becomes special, you get a window with the notice "You have just created a new special unit", and you can improve one stat of your choice like range, building cost, attack, defense, speed, morale, and name the unit to your liking like, Quatrieme. From this point, all successive triremes built by this nation would be Quatriemes. (would be nice with special unit spies called MI6 - increased chance of success).

The spec units, you'd have a chance to edit them yourself furthering your appropriate specialization (thus special units, what it's all about). I, myself 'd love to have a spec "Pink Panther" squad like engineer on double-time.

As for civ-specific modifiers the best I've seen are in SMAC. I wish Firaxis will adapt SMAC concept to Civilization, because it was BRILLIANT. I really like the difference between Spartans and Gaians.

[Chronus]

the advantages in production and trade of a golden age in the early times will be negligable and easily surpassed by anyone just by trading with other civs.

I disagree. The trading aspect MAY be negligable but certainly not the production.

ICS has proved itself to be a good game-winning technique. Important tenants in ICS is to build quickly AND EARLY. I'm a bit concerned that civs enjoying an early golden age will have a big advantage.

This leads to my next question: is it safe to assume that turning off the special units and abilities will turn off the golden ages? I hope so.

Lastly, my $.02. I really like this golden age idea. However, I also enjoy playing the game peacefully . . . that is, I don't like starting a war (though, I love protecting my beloved civ from an aggressor ). Firaxis, please don't force me to start a war to get my golden age reward.

[Alantus]

Originally posted by Chronus

Firaxis, please don't force me to start a war to get my golden age reward.

Barbarians should have this covered.

Alantus

[splangy]

Originally posted by hetairoi22
Remember that techs are cheaper early on. If you, while your in your golden age, change to republic, and put 80% trade to science..

I agree that the production bonus is worth much more later on, though.

units are cheaper early on, so why would it be better, becouse you have more cities? but early on 3 legions are a good army, later its like 10 tanks.

[splangy]

Originally posted by Alantus


Barbarians should have this covered.

Alantus

on civ fanatics.com dan said that barbs dont count

[Tiberius]

What happens if you bribe a special unit of another tribe and then kill something with it?

I myself can only imagine the surprise of the unfortunate 20th century engineer that will be suddently assaulted by my ancient hoplite phalanx coming out of a transport ship

ROTFL !!!
God, I love the Apolyton forums

[Alantus]

Originally posted by splangy


on civ fanatics.com dan said that barbs dont count

ouch

Alantus

[Grumbold]

Having the golden age manually triggered by the player any time within fifty turns of discovering their special unit tech could provide the right balance between choice for peaceful builders and warmongers and time to prepare to make the most of those 20 turns. Alternatively having a special unit move onto your capital could trigger a prompt (like the trade caravans used to on arrival).

For the military civs the golden ages are normally seen as the times when they already have overrun many countries and are basking in their victory. Having it trigger before you've at least built up an army to go stomping would be odd.

[M. le Comte]

I do agree with Scrooge in his conception of what a spec unit must or should be.

During History, special units were not genetically attached to a civilization. No civilization is born with a special way to make war. That's (sorry) totally stupid.
Indeed, civilizations have special units because they specialize themselve into the production of that kind of units. The American have an air strenght because they have axed their military defense on that, because they hav build a lot of F16 (it's just an example), and not because when they come out of their mother, they have a joystick hooked to the hand.
So that should be an element of Civilization. Special units shouldn't be prewiewed but given according to the player's style of game.

Scrooge is right too when he says that golden age shouldn't be de consequency of war. I think war shouldn't be the ONLY way to reach a GA. Wealth and happyness should be taken into account.

But don't forget that war is a big part of civilization. Without war, there would be no strategy. No interest. In fact, the aim of the game is always some how to dominate the other civ. Blood is a way to this goal. Blood must be an element of the birth of a golden age.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Tiberius
ROTFL !!!

God, I love the Apolyton forums

Yeah lol, but the concern is valid. I too think the concept of a war-victory trigger is invalid. Heck, if the developers already mention this possibility of dragging those tribal spearman to the nuclear age just to manipulate your GO onset, it's easy to see it's not going to be much fun. A different trigger would be better -perhaps obtaining a crucial tech?

Reminds me of a friend of mine, actually -he used to carry a sole Phalanx around until the modern age, just to make it travel along his cities as a sort of triumphant parade. Made me frown back then already!

[rah]

I am definately in the camp that the an earlier golden age is an advantage. In most MP games, the eventual outcome is really decided in the first 40 turns. (example. The first person to Monarchy has a heck of an advantage in terms of production to spit out settlers.) A golden age is very similar. Granted, it won't always work this way, but I like my chances better.

In most MP games, there's a chance that the Americans will be eliminated well before flight.

And I think later in the game, you have more options for selective boosts in certain areas. If you have a lot of money, you don't need extra production, you can buy it. If you have a lot of money, you can set your tax rate to zero. ETC.

I have this sneaking suspicion that most MP games will be played without the Special units. And in SP, it won't matter because the AI will lose regardless, once people get familiar with the how the new features impact the game.

RAH
How about attacking diplos, will that count?
If you stick it in a stack with 11 tanks and you win, will it count?

[The diplomat]

Here are 3 reasons why an early GA is NOT too weak:
1)In the early game, I might only have 3 undevellopped cities but so do all my opponents. My GA will still give me a nonnegligeable edge against those opponents.
2)In the late game, buildings cost a lot more than in the beginning. The GA might give me more but things cost more, it is proportionally the same as an early GA.
3)By the end of the game, the GA might not do me any good, because I might have already lost! Like someone said:most games, especially MP, are decided early.

I do not have any problem with tying GA to civ specific units. It gives players an extra incentive to build their special units. You can't tie GA to culture because that would unbalance culture. By tying GA to special units it allows the player to sort of control when the GA occurs thus giving the player an extra tool of strategy to use against the opponent. The idea is to create that paper-rock-scissors kinda of strategy: do a GA early to get an extra edge or do I hold back. If I hold back, will I fall hopelessly behind that my late GA won't save me?

Golden Ages are tools of strategy for the player to use against their opponents.

My only small concern would be the AI. Golden Ages could make the game easier for the human player since humans usually have an easier time managing ressources. Will the AI be able to take full advantage of the extra gold and production? But this does not negate the fact that Golden Ages are good!
But in Multi-player, I suspect that Golden Ages will be like cunning weapons used brilliantly by players to outdo the others.

[Grumbold]

An interesting observation that a very unique item (the special unit) which may prove contentious or unbalancing is needed to trigger a very even fixed special event. Players who want to turn off the special units will also lose the Golden Ages. Another approach would be to make it a cheap tech you could research anytime. That way the Ages and the Units could be toggled on or off separately.

[Mannamagnus]

Since my favourite civ is likely to be the French and their UU is a musketeer I would say their GA is perfectly timed just before the industrial age.

[Didymus]

FWIW, I think that a Golden Age in the beginning is far more powerful for two reasons:

A late GA will probably not matter -- the game will be over by then, unless Firaxis does an excellent job of preventing this. Which isn't likely. The rich get richer, etc.

A late GA will confer a smaller turn advantage. Why? Because each tile is producing MORE in later ages, so the proportional benefit is reduced. And you could very well end up suffering from a late GA because of increased pollution, unless the extra shields are exempt.

Of course, a GA in the first ten turns will likely be worthless.

As far as the GA trigger goes, I prefer simply building the special civ unit, since I agree that actually fighting with it is something some civs will want to avoid. OTOH, simply researching the tech seems too passive a trigger.

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I'm looking for a GA somewhere in the 0-500 a.d. gap. That's where my science rate has become sluggish and I have to wait what seems like forever before I can do anything. Since I'll be using Greeks, this means I'll probably have to delay the deployment of of my UU, the hoplite.

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Since my favourite civ is likely to be the French and their UU is a musketeer I would say their GA is perfectly timed just before the industrial age.

My favorite nation is Duckland, AFAIK they have a GA all the time and their SU is the famous Pink Panther Engineer Team. I mean, with all due respect, Civ is a game based on history and not a lesson in history.

Historically-valid SUs an GAs serve well in, prehaps, earth-like scenario games, not in open random-map games, where the Mighty Zulus build Statue of Liberty.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Since my favourite civ is likely to be the French and their UU is a musketeer I would say their GA is perfectly timed just before the industrial age.

A man after my own heart. I made these comments on the 'Civ3 - Civilizations' forum:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=24536

I think the point the French get their golden age is ideal, earlier and your civ will be too small to feel any great effect from it, and too late and it may be a bit of a 'drop in the ocean' in the modern era. So yeah, it could be useful, although if earlier on, it could give you the advantage in grabbing those ancient wonders...

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Since my favourite civ is likely to be the French and their UU is a musketeer I would say their GA is perfectly timed just before the industrial age.

I was just curious. How do you know that the French unique unit is the Musketeer? Please tell me that there is a list of each civ with its unique unit somewhere.

[Scrooge]

Originally posted by M. le Comte
... But don't forget that war is a big part of civilization. Without war, there would be no strategy. No interest. In fact, the aim of the game is always some how to dominate the other civ. Blood is a way to this goal. Blood must be an element of the birth of a golden age.

Not only blood. You're thinking about military sims or srats. IMhO, when broken down to the broadest components, Civ is a game of two very distinct aspects:

1. internal affaires (health, wealth and -good- spirit)
2. external affaires (treaties, espionage and finally WAR).

This makes up for the uniqueness and depth of Civ - it is in fact a game of DIPLOMACY. War and blood, are ultimate TOOLS of DIPLOMACY. As as you can win the game, by building a great nation, you can do it through war and conquest but also by peaceful means - trade, pacts internal happiness and stability. There are many ways to skin a cat in Civ- as there are many ways to win the game. Sometimes you fight, sometimes you roll over and play dead, sometimes you talk (combination usually works best). Treaties, trade, pacts, espionage (preferably successful) is also strategy, not just killing frenzy.

I actually remember, when you were awarded a score bonus for extended peace!

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy

Reminds me of a friend of mine, actually -he used to carry a sole Phalanx around until the modern age, just to make it travel along his cities as a sort of triumphant parade. Made me frown back then already!

That reminds me of a game I played as the Greeks. One of my first Goodie Hut surprises was a mercenary Phalanx, which then earned itself a Veteran rank. I based the unit in my capitol as some sort of Royal Guard. Didn't cost me any production as the unit had no home (i.e. it was from "NONE").

Apologies for the OT post.

[korn469]

i think the best trigger for golden ages would be simply, when you build your civ's unique unit, so it is still possible to control when you hit a GA, plus it would be in the same time frame as a combat victory from a CSU, and it would also allow peaceful players to have a GA without being forced to goto war

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Kenobi


That reminds me of a game I played as the Greeks. One of my first Goodie Hut surprises was a mercenary Phalanx, which then earned itself a Veteran rank. I based the unit in my capitol as some sort of Royal Guard. Didn't cost me any production as the unit had no home (i.e. it was from "NONE").

Apologies for the OT post.

Heheheh. I used to do that with goodie hut units too, to replace the standard garrison -saves precious production shields for the city.

Regarding the suggestion that the GA should start when the first special unit is built -this just strengthens my thought that military units have little to do with a GA. I think a GA should be more of a cultural/scientific thing.

[Orlando]

If first victory with civ-specific unit is not a good idea, how about when the first civ-specific unit is organized (built)?

[Mannamagnus]

I think a golden age should reflect a relationship between trade, production and especialy culture. As far as I know going to war has never brought about a golden age. Ending a war however did.

[Orlando]

In the Modern Age, perhaps. I do not profess to be an expert in history, but in the Ancient and even Renaissance Eras, were Golden Ages were not born of conquest and supremacy? Such as Rome (in the Ancient Age) and England (in the Renaissance Age).

Even in the Modern Age, can it not be argued, for example that the Golden Age of the United States began after its involvment in WWII?

I think the actual construction of a civ-specific unit might better reflect the pinnacle of research, production, and in some cases trade (if you do not have the resources initially to build the unit) in the Modern Age, but for Ancient and Renaissance Eras, perhaps the victory of the unit in battle not so bad a trigger after all.

[Mannamagnus]

Like you said Orlando: the "golden age" of the US started after WW2 in the late fourties and fifties.
During Rome's golden age there were no real wars only skirmishes with much weaker civs like for example the Israelites or some Germanic tribes. In the periods that Rome was facing a more or less equal oppenent (e.g. the Punic wars) the situation was so dire that you could not speak of a golden age.
Englands golden age also started after its war with Spain when there came stability and it was no longer threatened by equaly strong nations. Englands golden age ended with a war even though they won it.
All out war is too costly for a golden age; ending a war frees up means for culture, education and social improvements.