Golden Age Denial

[nbarclay]

I just ran into a situation where another nation and I shared a border and they were working on two wonders, either of which could (coupled with one they already had) have given them a golden age. My response? Attack as soon as I could get all my ducks in a row. Both their cities building the wonders fell into my hands, and the possibility of that nation getting a golden age through building a wonder disappeared.

Another golden age denial possibility is to beat the enemy to the requisite wonders, especially on Monarch level or lower where outproducing the AI is generally relatively easy. But seeing as their capital was where I wanted my capital to be...

Nathan

[dexters]

I don't think Golden Age is tied only to wonders. Getting technologies also triggers it (am I wrong here?)

In either case, attacking should slow both processes down.

[Catt]

You (and the AI) can trigger a golden age in one of two ways:

1. Win a battle with your civ's unique unit.

2. Build one or more wonders with the "qualities" that constitute your civ's attributes -- these qualities are assigned and can be viewed in the editor (they are not always obvious!). For example, Egypt is Industrious / Religious. If the Egyptians build the Pyramids (Ind / Rel), a golden age will occur. If the Egyptians build both the Oracle (Rel) and Hoover Dam (Ind), a golden age will occur.

Only one golden age per civ.

No GA from technologies, I'm afraid.

[nbarclay]

Of course for a civ to get a golden age with its UU, it has to survive long enough to get the technology to build its UU. (Yes, I know in some cases that just means surviving until the start of the game. ) That can be a problem for AIs with late-game UUs, or even medieval ones if an aggressive human player starts close enough. If you can get a golden age but prevent a rival from doing so, that gives you a HUGE advantage.

Nathan

[Harovan]

I avoid to wage wars against civs in their GA, given it is in the medieval age or later. And I love to intentionally trigger a civs GA, when it's least effective. For instance, if Greeks are my neighbors, attack a wandering hoplite with a warrior early, and then only defend. The GA won't give the Greeks anything useful, as it doesn't affect food production and during the expansion all is about food, and usually they make only a pathetic counterattack, which can be easily stopped with a couple of archers and spears. Similar with other civs... well, maybe except the Aztecs .

[Jethro83]

I agree with Sir Ralph. Get the enemy to start their golden age too early, and it will cripple them later on. I don't even mind letting them beat me to the ancient wonders, since a lot of them will expire, and I'll have them later on when I conquer them anyway. Anything to fire up their golden age too early for them to make good use of it.

[nbarclay]

It's not an either/or situation. If a civ has an early UU, triggering their Golden Age prematurely sounds like an interesting strategy, while trying to keep them from ever getting a GA is probably unrealistic. Conversely, if a civ has a medieval or later UU, you can't trigger their golden age early but you can potentially keep them from living to see it.

Nathan

[Velociryx]

I like *playing* the Aztecs....eat the early golden age along with every neighbor I've got....

-=Vel=-
Aztec theory of war: Late game GA's don't matter if you're the only civ left standing by 100AD

[Lawrence of Arabia]

lol

[Txurce]

Vel's Aztec Theory of War applies to everything that comes later in Civ 3, be it a GA or a UU: who cares about optimal timing - for you, or the AI - if you've already gained control of the game?

The meta-goal is to win the game. The purpose of every other aspect of the game is to help you achieve that goal. When a GA is most useful has to be answered contextually, and I don't see any context more meaningful than winning the game. All overwhelming Civ3 victories are due to ancient-era success; getting a slow start doesn't mean you'll lose, but it does mean you won't kick ass.

This is why I favor... rather than begrudgingly accept... an early GA. With an early-UU civ, the extra production allows you to pump out more UUs, increasing the speed with which you carve out the empire that guarantees runaway success. So what if you don't build GWs or much infrastructure with it? The purpose of all that stuff is to help you win the game... and you'll win it earlier with a GA-fueled ancient-era UU rush.

This philosophy applies as much to builder strats as well as to warmongering ones, if playing at the higher levels. Ancient-era expansion is essential to victory at the higher levels. The sooner it is completed, the sooner you can move on to your secondary goal, be it domination or one of the builder victories. By the time you reach the medieval period, you ought to have enough GLs or cities to research and build the happiness wonder to sustain your civ's quality of life. You may want other medieval GWs, but you don't need them to win; and having a well-timed GA doesn't guarantee getting them. (On the other hand, a GA to pump out UUs does guarantee numerical superiority with superior units.)

This perspective doesn't take into account individual preferences, like players who like to build every GW just because they like to. It's about winning as decisively as possible, regardless of your chosen mode of victory. At the higher levels, decisive victories are won in the ancient era; if you have a critical mass of cities, tech parity, and the resources to fund representative government circa as you enter the medieval era, everything else is a relative afterthought. The AI's back is broken. Consequently, my goal is to do everything I can to break the AI's back as soon as possible, the quicker to achieve victory (or increase its margin). This leads me to use my GA (and UU) when it is both most critical and when I need their edge the most: in the ancient era.