Golden ages unbalanced?

[ChrisShaffer]

During a "golden age", all worked tiles in your empire contribute one additional trade and shield per turn. Golden ages only occur once, last twenty game turns, and are triggered when any one of your civ-specific units wins its first combat against another civ.

The Babylonians will get a golden age at the start of the game, when they're only working a handful of tiles. The Americans, on the other hand, will get one in the endgame, when they're working dozens or hundreds of tiles. That seems a bit skewed in favor of the Americans, eh?

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer


The Babylonians will get a golden age at the start of the game, when they're only working a handful of tiles. The Americans, on the other hand, will get one in the endgame, when they're working dozens or hundreds of tiles. That seems a bit skewed in favor of the Americans, eh?

Guess it depends on how you spend the time... you could argue that by having your "golden age" early, you can accelerate your race to a tech or wonder goal, and get the jump on your opponents.

And there's also the totally "legal" (though I think it kind of betrays the whole concept) strategy of holding back all of your civ-specific units until you're ready to enter a golden age, but the downside to that is, by the time you're ready, your special unit might not be that big of a deal to the other civs.

Dan

[korn469]

actually the zulus would get it first...

but could you imagine holding back an impi till like the last 25 turns of the game...die engineer die!!!

[Warm Beer]

On the other hand, this does add more to the "Rise and Fall" element that is wanted in the game. Though imperfect, I think it will be interesting and a nice addition.

The trick now becomes managing your civ in a competitive manner while one of two things happen:

1)your civ is waiting for a late game "golden age" while other civs are at thier height.

2)Maintaining your competetive edge if your civ has an early Golden Age and you progress past it while others have thier's yet to come.

I like it.

[Warm Beer]

and

3)Surviving w/o a Golden Age cos your special unit never managed to win a battle.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

Originally posted by Warm Beer
and

3)Surviving w/o a Golden Age cos your special unit never managed to win a battle.

That could be hilarious -- I can just picture rushing a tank with a bunch of legionaires, desperately hoping one will pull out a fluke victory to start your golden age...

Dan

[TechWins]

but could you imagine holding back an impi till like the last 25 turns of the game...die engineer die!!!

Can this happen Dan? What I mean is, do your civ-specific units ever become obsolete?

I happen to think that the Golden Age is balanced very well. I'm glad you can only have one per civ.

[Warm Beer]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS

And there's also the totally "legal" (though I think it kind of betrays the whole concept) strategy of holding back all of your civ-specific units until you're ready to enter a golden age, but the downside to that is, by the time you're ready, your special unit might not be that big of a deal to the other civs.

Dan

Tech:
It looks like this is possible. I suppose the really cheap strat would be to hold back an Impi, stack with tanks and howitzers, and take out the settler to usher in your Golden Age.

Cheap, but unsure if that would actually work.

[Harlan]

Thumbs up on the Golden Age idea. However, I'm not psyched about the trigger. It leads to many wierd effects, such as holding back an ancient unit or two till modern times (I'm sure one could find some worker or settler to attack, so not winning isn't a problem if you have any sense at all).

And anyways, why does a Golden Age have to come with war? Many (most?) Golden Ages were in fact peaceful times. Having the Golden Age trigger be connected to culture makes so much more sense.

I know its too late to change such things, but is this at least something that will be editable, if I want a different kind of trigger?

[TechWins]

And anyways, why does a Golden Age have to come with war? Many (most?) Golden Ages were in fact peaceful times. Having the Golden Age trigger be connected to culture makes so much more sense.

You're right there. It is believed by many that properity can not be achieved unless there is peace. I think the reason why they did it in a war way is so that you're destined to achieve a golden age most likely. Having it be with your specific unit will most likely make you achieve your golden age when that civs golden age was achieved in history. Culture would make more sense from a realistic point of view but not from a gameplay point of view. So the way it is fine by me.

[El hidalgo]

I agree with Harlan. This presents not only problems with historical accuracy, but also game play. What if you're at peace and you don't want to start a way? Your unique unit could come later in the game, when some civs have alliances and mutual protection packs -- then you have to start a world war to usher in your golden age! Are your computer opponents going to go mad all of a sudden and attack you just to usher in their golden age? There need to be more triggers. Culture is a possibility; perhaps building certain wonders + having a certain culture rating. Perhaps it could vary according to special abilities: a militaristic civ would usher in its golden age by winning a battle with its special unit, but a religious civ would have to build a special wonder (Hagia Sophia, Notre Dame?) and/or have a certain number of religious buildings (temples, cathedrals). (A civ that is both religious and militaristic could do either.) Ah well, I guess it's too late now. A good idea, but I am not optimistic about its implementation.

[DarkCloud]

If the golden ages were only for the main EARTH scenario it would be good... but what about allowing in the scenario collection people to randomize golden ages and have it so they do not know when their golden age is?

Also- what if you could have your civ customize its golden ages before the game?

This game is going to be fun, fun, fun.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by joseph1944
This game is going to be fun, fun, fun.

Oh yeah. :drool: <-- Insert smiley here

[Eddin]

Like Harlan said, good idea, bad trigger.

But Harlan, most golden ages come not out of cultural booms (you have a name for that: cultural golden age), but out of supremacy (pax romana, nobody could challenge the romans, arabic age, spanish with their empire, dutch with their trade monopolies (sorta), French with their landpower, America with its McDonalds etcetera etcetera). Golden ages are marked by supremacy in an area, mostly military or commercial.

How to implement that? Beats me

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by ChrisShaffer


The Babylonians will get a golden age at the start of the game, when they're only working a handful of tiles. The Americans, on the other hand, will get one in the endgame, when they're working dozens or hundreds of tiles. That seems a bit skewed in favor of the Americans, eh?

Exactly. Can you really compare a golden age (=20 turns of extra arrow and extra shiled) of 30 or more very large cities to a golden age of 3 or 5 barely developed ones?

This is very dissapointing and it further unbalances the civs

Better let the player decide when he/she wants its golden age to begin or change the criteria for its initiation.

[Ribannah]

I can't wait to see my Dragline (Dutch special unit)make its first kill!

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

[Bereta_Eder]

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

HEHE

Good question! (propably nothing though )

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

Firaxis change it plz?

Ever the optimist, eh Sabre2th?
But your probably right.

Everyone, look at the fairness aspect this way - Early golden ages come when stuff is still cheap - when an extra shield per tile counts more. Later golden ages come when stuff is more expensive. Sounds fair to me

[Alex 14]

I doubt you'll be abel to bribe a special-unit and then control it. I wonder how Firaxis are going to get around this.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Those at Firaxis must be shaking their heads and rolling their eyes.

Some of you people what a Realistic historically accurate game but you get upset when it is.

Exactly. Can you really compare a golden age (=20 turns of extra arrow and extra shiled) of 30 or more very large cities to a golden age of 3 or 5 barely developed ones?

Actually this is more accurate and realistic. Think about it. How can you compare the Babylonian golden age to the American Golden age.

Of course it depends when you say they had their golden age.

The babylonian Golden age was way back when they used horses for transportation. Where as the American golden age took place when they were driving around in machines.

How many cities did the babylonians have when they had their golden age, what 3 or 5? Realisticaly, Probably.

How many cities did the americans have when they had their golden age, what 30 or more? Realisticaly, Yeah.

At the time the babylonians had their golden age it was signifigant, but compared to today it wasnt that great (were comunicating through wires on a world wide comunications network known as the internet for Sid's sake). They only had a few cities and towns. While the Americans had many cities and towns and a great deal of Technology and Knowledge. Isnt this realistic? Yes it is

So whats the problem?

[Bereta_Eder]

Draco,
this discussion has been held numerous times before. But just some quick points:

Civ 3 is not about accurate historical reproduction. It's a game with which you should have fun and rewrite history. All civs must have the same propability of winning even though the specific advantages and disadvantages of each civ can be different.

The golden age hugely benefits certain civs more than others and that definitely hurts the game's balance.

Hell, if we wanted complete historical accuracy then the Golden Age would be only for the greek civ during the Pericles era. (not even the whole greek civ - just the city of Athens).

But it's not about 100% copy of history. It's about giving all the civs equal chances of winning. Golden Age as is implemented unbalances the civs although in itself it's a good idea. The trigger is wrong.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Early golden ages come when stuff is still cheap - when an extra shield per tile counts more. Later golden ages come when stuff is more expensive. Sounds fair to me

Good point but there are some traps. In Civ 2 as long as you didn't have a lot of techs, you needed few beacons for reaching your next tech. advance. But the more techs you had, the more beacons you needed. So it depends on your civ only and thus renders the extra arrows useless in this regard.

About production: I guess you could build two or three libraries faster when you have your golden age in the early times. But does this really compare to having the ability to speed up the production of megatons of space material in 30 cities during the frenetic pace of a space race?

[Inverse Icarus]

i agree with all of you who say the trigger is wrong.

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

this would also keep warmongers or sleezers from getting golden ages easily.

[Harlan]

While I see a problem with the trigger, I don't see a problem with some civs having their Golden Age earlier than others. Advantages early in the game tend to multiply over time. For instance, play a game where you found a city on your first turn, compare to founding a city on your tenth. That difference right there could make or break victory. Perhaps the Bablyonians have their Golden Age in 2000 BC, and the bonuses help them pull into the lead, so that by the time the Americans would have their Golden Age, the game is already over? Who can say what may happen.

I still hope that the editability of the game is such that one can change the Golden Age trigger to culture or whatever. Even cooler: ability to adjust the Golden Age effect in each instance. One could then play a scenario, where, as the kings change the civ goes through good times and sometimes bad times under incompetent kings (anti-Golden Ages).

"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" - that sounds soooo stupid - Firaxis please change this!

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Where do i say that i wanted it to be historically accurate?

The thought i gave the impression that i liked the way there going with it. I did say that most of you did if not all though, maybe i was wrong in saying that?

Yes your right they have discussed this before, this whole forum is like a broken record, but sometimes there is something new and interesting, i was just giving my opinion which i havent given till now on this matter.

Doing it on cultural points was one thing that popped in my head, i think this could be done. So would you have to get like half the max cultural points or what? I think it would be better to have the golden age closer when they actually had it. I really dont think the more advanced a civ is at that time will matter.

We wont know untill we play the game right? Firaxis has hands on, they are making the game are they not, so they put it their for a reason right?

So we will have to wait till they release the game .

HURRY UP FIRAXIS ! ! !

[Bereta_Eder]

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.

The production bonuses of golden ages in the modern era will be tremendous and can not be compensated or replaced by anything AFAK.

Not to mention that in the modern times, each technology counts ten times more and you'll not be willing to trade techs with others and giving up your hard earned and precious modern techs.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
but sometimes there is something new and interesting, i was just giving my opinion which i havent given till now on this matter.

It is heard and respected

Doing it on cultural points was one thing that popped in my head, i think this could be done.

That does sound good and it would be more realistic

[Draco aka Se7eN]

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.

The production bonuses of golden ages in the modern era will be tremendous and can not be compensated or replaced by anything AFAK.

Not to mention that in the modern times, each technology counts ten times more and you'll not be willing to trade techs with others and giving up your hard earned and precious modern techs.

Hmm you make some good points here

Perhaps Those at firaxis should make Tech more valuable in the beginning, The ai will be less likly to trade in the beginning of the game so therefor you will have to be also.

[Laszlo]

Through getting your golden age early you would be giving up a lot of extra production from later on, but what if that super-human burst of speed let you build Leonardo's Workshop or aquire Gunpowder first?

The game has reached a level of complexity deep enough that the elements' interactions make simple number comparisons moot.