Golden ages unbalanced? - Page 3

August 20, 2001, 12:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Scrooge
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, militarizing 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.

War has been here since the start of man. I bought a new book yesterday (Atlas of World History by Oxford ($85.00)). I have not look at every page yet, but every page I have look at is about conquest. Actually Firaxis is being somewhat true to history. Our whole history is one war after another.
If Firaxis has listen to all of the people who wanted the AI to be better at everything, then depending what level you play at, you will not have to start a fight with your neighbor, he/she will come to you.
Remember this your Grandfathers and Great-Grandfathers did not have to go to Germany or the Soviet Union, they came to you.

genghisvick · August 20, 2001, 13:11

I think the golden ages are a good idea; it will make a realistic "rise & fall" pattern which is historically accurate.

Scrooge · August 20, 2001, 14:47

Quote:

Originally posted by joseph1944

War has been here since the start of man. I bought a new book yesterday (Atlas of World History by Oxford ($85.00)). I have not look at every page yet, but every page I have look at is about conquest. ...

Perhaps your ($85.00) book states something about the cause of war and that no nation can wage a successful war without proper economic background. Even Napoleon said, that war needs three resources, which are: money, money and money.

The way I see it implemented in the game is by by disconnecting the two concepts of GA and SU altogether. Let them live their own lives. The SU is the "need breed" player-customizable solution (I've described somewhere else, please check my previous posts) and the GA is a vector of economy, science and happiness, thus influencing culture standing (expanding borders, also described). The GA is dependent on player's competence (and difficulty lvl), the special unit is what you decide it to be. The two may coexist in the same or different time-frame. I don't want CivIII to be an $85.00 lesson in history.

Alfonsus71 · August 21, 2001, 03:05

Quote:

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?

Au contrair, the civs that has special units at the beggining of the game (babylonians, with bowmen, zulu, with impi, egyptians with war charriots, iroquises with braves?,...) have a great advantage. If those bowmen or impi can move x2 having the strengh of regular infantry, at least in CIV2 terms, that´s such a big advantage and a good player could occupy much more territory with that civs that with p.e. the americans. So your zulu civ, with more and better lands, will grow faster than the americans, and will have jet fighters years before the americans could deploy their F-15.

The age of gold feature could try to balance that, but I disagree about the way that age appears. Historically, Ages of gold are much more related with arts or science than with military.

Orlando · August 21, 2001, 10:04

It may not have to be full out war with another civilization that triggers it.

The special unit could defeat a barbarian unit, for example, and it sounds like that would qualify for the trigger.

Rommel393 · August 21, 2001, 10:55

Remember, to trade you have to have built roads and harbors to connect with your rivals' cities. In the begining these will not be widely built therefore, trading will be much less than in the modern ages. Therefore making golden ages good in the begining.

I don't think the time you get the golden age is going to be a bad thing. If you get it in the begining you can build military or comercial power that is the equivalent at that time of a high-tech war machine produced by the americans. These two forces will most likely never meet so how are they going to unbalance eachother? If you become more powerful early in the game you have that much more of a headstart over any other civ. The effects of an early golden age will grow exponentially over the years to make it as good as a modern golden age.

People, I think its all just a matter of your personal taste and civ strategy.

Olangotang · August 21, 2001, 11:19

I'm a bit worried about the golden age tigger.

Say if you are the zulu and you start on an island with no other civ and no shollow water crossing your special unit will be very out of date by the time you cross the sea to find other civ's.
If you are unable to make more special units you could very easly miss out on your golden age.

War4ever · August 21, 2001, 12:44

i too go with the sentiment of nice concept.....leary about the trigger.....

A better thought out trigger would be a cultural points bonus..... as many have stated most golden eras come from enlightenment..... usually an era of peace.....though war was often a great contributer.

perhaps once your capital has three trade routes and after your first special unit wins a battle...or is built....

and for MP purposes..... this really unballances the game like the special units.....i hope there is an option to turn this stuff off....

from the looks of things i am seeing AOE/ in turn base mode

but damm that tin box looks neat......

lord of the mark · August 21, 2001, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
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.

I agree uberkrux - when you get your golden age would depend on what you DO. A realistic simulation of history.

But Firaxias is not going for a realistic sim - they're going for "history on rails" ie babylonians had their golden age early in actual history and so should have it early in the game, even if they havent built a single library or other city imrovement. This is to counter those people who thought civ was ahistorical because the americans could become dominant in BC, while romans and babs did well in 1900, etc.

A realistic game with an ahisotrical start (modern civs starting out in 4000BC on a random map) SHOULD give ahistorical results. Take an ahistorical start, and a game still with plenty of unrealistic rules, the only way to get "historical" results is to force them, as with the golden age rule.

LOTM

Orlando · August 21, 2001, 17:22

In previous games, I just assumed that extended, sustained We Love the Leader Day throughout your civilization was basically a Golden Age of sorts. A civilization that is so proseperous that the government is able to provide everything the people need to be happy (and the benefits that occur from happy cities) is a Golden Age in and of itself.

Scrooge · August 21, 2001, 19:47

There has already been said so much about Golen Ages, Special Units, Barbs and WLTK day...

Still, I would like to invite you all concerned, to have a look at the CFC discussion on the topic, it has a lot of fine points and an input from FIRAXIS.

Alinestra Covelia · August 22, 2001, 08:51

Quote:

Originally posted by 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 agree with Harlan totally on this one. I would say that the Renaissance in Europe was brought about by exploration and internal order, not by the chaos of the Crusade wars or the feudal wars between states.

It would be nice if we could establish something like a Diplomat Special Unit (something that, for some weird reason, always struck me as being a suitably Chinese civ-specific unit... don't know why) and if it accomplishes a covert operation, then a Golden Age begins or something.

I personally think this present trigger, war, is a very inflexible and inaccurate way to implement such a game mechanic. Much better would be the old Civ2 (and especially SMAC) "tech-trigger" where the first researcher gets a free tech.

BlackStone · August 25, 2001, 09:45

La la

Ralf · August 25, 2001, 14:55

This topic deserves a bump.
Its a nice idea, but the special unit dependent trigger is a bad idea - inadequate at best.

lupusmalus · August 26, 2001, 17:31

To all of you who "don't want to start a war to have a golden age": I wish I had your problems! Maybe it's just me, but in Civs I + II my dear neighbours just LOVE to attack me! And taking one city after the other from them doesn't teach them, either

lupusmalus · August 26, 2001, 17:39

To all of you who "don't want to start a war to have a golden age": I wish I had your problems. Maybe it's just me, but in Civs I + II my dear neighbours just LOVE to attack me! And taking one city after the other away from them doesn't teach them, either

Adm.Naismith · August 27, 2001, 03:15

Quote:

Originally posted by lupusmalus
To all of you who "don't want to start a war to have a golden age": I wish I had your problems! Maybe it's just me, but in Civs I + II my dear neighbours just LOVE to attack me!

So we have the problem of others Civ chosing our Golden Age: if we have for special unit a defensive one (i.e. greeks hoplites) we must at least put them in defense of cities and colonies, or fortify them into fort (if available).

Then, while I'm not still ready to a Golden Age, a barbarian or a warmonger civ come and attack me, probably loosing (good!) but forcing my GA start (baaaad!).

Never mind: I'll see playing the real game if this work or not, because I don't think this single point is what will ruin the game.

In case of the worst I'll wait for a MOD or the "six months later" expansion pack to fix things a little.

Orlando · August 27, 2001, 06:48

In a worst-case scenario, as you said, it can be switched off without having to buy anything extra.

The civ3.com website, in the section that discusses Golden Ages, says Golden Ages are completely optional.

It can probably be switched on and off like say Bloodlust in Civ2.