 |
| |
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
It IS a game, but since you went into history BC then you know that Firaxis took the name «Golden Age» from the only one that ever was: the «Golden Century of Athens» under the leadership of Pericles and involved only Athens and secondarily only its aegean empire.
It was definetily not an accident, too many factors contributed.
On the other hand of course Athens didn't «chose» it to happen then and there.
But it's only a game. I think choosing it enhances the strategic element. Having a bazilion things happening in order to get a GA will orient most of the game towards achieving it and will undermine other great aspects INMO.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Actually all this historically accurate rise and fall stuff seems pretty inappropriate to me.
* Are Golden Ages for flavor?
Example 1: I play the Mongols and get some cool horseback archer special unit. That lends some flavor to the civ I chose. Galloping these distinctly Mongolian hordesmen across the map will feel somewhat different than a cavalry of knights (Either due to their distinct appearance and/or their different game stats). "Yah! I'm leading the Mongolian Hordes! Get out of my way you decadent urbanites!"
Example 2: I play the Mongols and, at the historically appropriate epoch, they get their Golden Age, regardless of whats happening in the game. Whatever. I don't think the Golden Ages (with or without their current triggers) serve to distinguish the varying civilizations in the least. Artificially getting an early Golden Age won't make me feel more like I'm playing the Mongols. Getting one late in the game by meeting wonder requirements even less so.
* Are Golden Ages for strategy?
If the Golden Ages are supposed to present some sort of strategy, why use unplanned epochs (like Greece's Golden Age) to add "strategy" to the game? I'm sure they could think of a host of cognizant choices (internal politics, assassinations, more detailed unit level tactics, etc.) that would make more sense and add more thought to the game as a strategic element than Golden Ages.
* Are Golden Ages to stop a civ from just getting better & better and never falling (some sort of game balance)?
If you find a single nation getting better and better under millennia of a single person's wise leadership distasteful or "inaccurate", perhaps Civ isn't the right game for you.
If you want to stop the "rich-get-richer" syndrome, then infrastructure problems for large empires, stagnating culture, urban crowding, or similar elements would do more to alleviate this than having every civ get arbitrary Golden Ages. Heck, even arbitrary pro-underdog anti-success elements like plagues in large empires or an even steeper learning curve for technologically advanced civs would be more effective at countering the "rich-get-richer" issue than Golden Ages.
If for some reason you believe that all civilizations must have golden ages and enforced fluctuations in their power in order to be "realistic", then again perhaps Civ isn't the right game for you.
As a concept, I think Golden Ages NEITHER add flavor & fun to the game NOR are they a good way to add strategy to the game NOR do they add to realism or game balance. I guess I need to read "The List" to find out why everyone was clamoring for this "rise and fall" aspect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dennis580
|
|
They should just scrap the UU golden age trigger and instead just use major wonders to trigger golden age's. Nobody should be guanranteed a golden age you should have to earn it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
dennis580
|
|
Minor wonders cann't trigger golden ages only Major wonders can. Also each Major wonder has only 2 different attributes and the wonders or wonders you build must have the combintaion of your civ attributes for you to trigger a golden age.
So as you can see probaly only 2,3, or 4 civs would get a golden age in the game wonders were the only option.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
This actually puzzles me. Now a wonder or two will trigger the GA? And also a military victory by a special unit? Hm!
I like the first idea better. Much better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
 |
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dennis580
They should just scrap the UU golden age trigger and instead just use major wonders to trigger golden age's. Nobody should be guanranteed a golden age you should have to earn it. |
Well, in princip I could sympathize with the latter. That was my viewpoint also, not long ago. Since then I have become a little worried though, that an "hard to achieve, only max 2-3 civs can make it" exclusive Great wonder trigger alone, plays too much in the hands of the clever civ-veteran player.
Theres a risk that mostly HP manage to build these GA-triggering wonders (and on top of that also be rewarded with the GA-bonus) - while these same wonders and (as an additional punishment) the GA-bonus effect becomes automatically excluded for (mostly) the AI-civs.
In an MP-game that wouldnt matter - yes, a few winners takes it all: thats the name of the game, one could argue. But in a MP-setup, one assume every contender are "Civ-pro's", so they all play on reasonably equal terms. In a SP-game on the other hand, the HP has a great "playfield overview advantage", that the AI-civs dont have.
So because of this I prefer a trigger that is more neutral (like my free to trigger within UU-era suggestion).
Another potential flaw with having only the current Great Wonder-trigger, is that gameplay stands the risk of take some beating. This because every civ becomes so totally concentrated on having these Great wonders (and as a result: the very worthwhile GA-bonus also), that everything else gets down-prioritized as much as possible. Like in Civ-2, then your 2-3 earliest (most developed) cities always started with building exclusive wonders (after sending away some settlers), before building any basic city-improvements. But now, with the current Great Wonder-trigger only, that problem would be even worse.
quote:
Originally posted by shum00
I do not agree with the choice of when to have your golden age for this reason: Say it is your era to have a golden age, but you are at war with a much more powerful nation which has captured many of your cities. You are surrounded and have little chance of survival. Why the heck would your people have a golden age? |
But you must compare with what we already got. Lets take your own example:
You are invaded by a more powerful enemy, but if you manage to kill a single enemy-unit with your Civ-specific unit, you currently get your Golden Age despite being "surrounded and have little chance of survival". So keeping the current UU-trigger wont solve your objections.
Since Civ-3 is a game only however (and not reality), the "Golden Age" should work as a fun "one era only, and only once" BOOST-function, gameplay-technically speaking. Let it be the players own choice (within specific era-limits) when to trigger GA.
What I dont like with the current UU-trigger is that it is "shoved down your throat", regardless if you want it or not/ regardless if your empire is that great, or not. Alternatively: You have to work as hell to get it.
An example: Lets say you play greece (specific unit: the hoplite = 1-3-1). If the GA is triggered by succesfully defending an attack, then all that defence-powerful hoplite has to do is to fortify itself on a defensive terrain-tile, or behind city-walls, and you are more or less garanteed GA as soon as you gets attacked.
On the other hand: IF GA only can be triggered by succesfully attacking a foreign unit; the you have to move out your slow & attack-weak Hoplite in order to find that damn foreign attack-object - and quickly before that weak 1-point attack-factor becomes hopelessly impotent. Is this a good UU-trigger solution, or what?
Last edited by Ralf on 12-09-2001 at 02:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by dennis580
Minor wonders cann't trigger golden ages only Major wonders can. |
Dennis-
I disagree. I've posted this before on other threads. If Major Wonders could only trigger GAs, that would mean that there are only 12 wonders with this power. Thus The Art of War AND Hoover Dam would be among these Major Wonders (along with the Great Wall). I find it HIGHLY unlikely that something as insignificant as the Hoover Dam would make it as a Major Wonder, especially considering that there are only 12 of them. It just doesn't make sense.
It makes MUCH more sense that these are Minor Wonders with only one attribute (militaristic, scientific etc.) as opposed to Major Wonders which would have two attributes. (Great Wall being one example.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ralf
|
|
Sweden
Mar 2000
time: 06:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jsw363
If Major Wonders could only trigger GAs, that would mean that there are only 12 wonders with this power. |
I agree that with 12 great wonders and 6 attributes (= only 1-3 exclusive great wonders per attribute), it seems relatively easy to prevent/ be prevented from ever using this trigger.
quote:
Originally posted by Kyller
...but the civ3 developer update VERY STRONGLY implies that only major wonders can cause golden ages (Great Wonders are also now associated with one or more of the Civilization strengths) and so implies that Art of War and Hoover Dam are major wonders. |
First I had the viewpoint that jsw363 now have, but after reading the latest & last part of the official developer update several times over, I slowly came to the conclusion that the viewpoint that Kyller stands for, is the more correct & likely one.
As for "Art of war" & "Hoower dam" as great wonders? Well, I understand your mixed feelings jsw363, but if they can be justifiable from a gameplay/game-balance point of view, then I can accept it.
By the way: IF "World Trade Center" is a wonder (I dont know), they should change the name & pictorial representation. Maybe International Trade Tower, or something. Aquiring Wonders should give the player a positive feeling - he shouldnt be reminded too blatantly of that terrorist act each and every time.
Last edited by Ralf on 12-09-2001 at 22:21
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2001 15:48
Again - here is what I wrote: "HOWEVER - Golden Ages should only be triggable within the era that civ-specific unit belongs to, whether it be ancient -> middle age - > industrial -> modern age."
Please God no 
Its only a game although a great one. By the way: switching back from democracy/republic to communism, monachy (not to mention despotism) should be a whole lote more difficult then it was in Civ-2. No more "tactical government-switching". But thats another issue.
|