Heroic ages?

[Glaeton]

Anybody else think you should get something for having consecutive golden ages? i think it's kinda ♥♥♥♥♥♥ that you can get a heroic age only by going into a dark age and then a golden age even though it is easier to do technically. i haven't managed to have a single dark age and only one normal age so kinda sucks you don't get bonuses for consecutive golden ages whcih are alot more work.

[rcuajunco]

some people get dark age on purpose. The isolation card that gives 2 production and 2 food too domestic trade routes early in the game is kind of amazing. Make really large citites and a large military then go into heroic age with a good army.

[Glaeton]

i get that but you should get better rewards for doing good too. not just doing bad and then good later on with a handicap. I mean 3 consecutive golden ages should give an extra bonus of some kind as a reward for working hard at it.

[Ozymandias]

The age system is built around risk/reward management.

Dark age: Makes player vulnerable to culture flips, invasions; however, it allows an opportunity to achieve a Heroic age.

Normal age: No risk, no reward.

Golden age: One strong bonus, more loyalty; however, it increases your risk of encounteriing a Dark age.

Heroic age: Three strong bonuses, more loyalty: essentially a reward for enduring a Dark age.

A dark age can be perilous, and it is risky for the player to allow themselves to enter one. Sometimes, it isn't that bad and the screen is just a bit darker. Sometimes, you get invaded on four sides and several of your cities flip. It is very circumstantial.

[theguynamedguy]

Getting Golden Ages is pretty easy; not as easy as getting Normal Ages, but pretty close. Getting a Dark Age while maintaining control and world standing is actually difficult, and I sometimes miss it by only one or two points. As a result, getting a Heroic Age feels as satisfying as it's meant to be.

[krabdr]

I think Golden Ages are somewhat undervalued compared to Normal Ages. If a Heroic Age grants 3 choices, why does a Golden Age only grant one and why is it only modestly better than that of a Normal Age? I view the ages as mostly just window dressing.

[Martin]

The one thing about this new system that I absolutely hate is always being exactly 1 pt off normal age or golden age or heroic age.. the options you get are pretty garbage as well, if anything this wasn't added to improve gameplay but to nerf it. Extra loyalty.. what's that good for? Oh nothing right.. great.

[Glaeton]

well i do think the rewards for golden ages are pretty meh except the one that allows for purchasing units with relegion was nice but again i think that was normal age reward. The golden age rewards are ok but could use a little more to make them feel like they are really doing much but the extra loyalty really does help with large empires with cities far from the capital and other large pop cities. i have currently managed to keep 2 of my cities only because i am in a golden age ( the thrid consectutive one) and no, aquiring mutliple golden ages is NOT easy. 2 of them i only got by 2 or 3 points and the next one i am not sure i am going to get.

[Digihuman]

Originally posted by Ozymandias:

The age system is built around risk/reward management.

Dark age: Makes player vulnerable to culture flips, invasions; however, it allows an opportunity to achieve a Heroic age.

Normal age: No risk, no reward.

Golden age: One strong bonus, more loyalty; however, it increases your risk of encounteriing a Dark age.

Heroic age: Three strong bonuses, more loyalty: essentially a reward for enduring a Dark age.

A dark age can be perilous, and it is risky for the player to allow themselves to enter one. Sometimes, it isn't that bad and the screen is just a bit darker. Sometimes, you get invaded on four sides and several of your cities flip. It is very circumstantial.

I would agree with you in principle, however in practice, Dark Age penalties only affect fringe areas of your empire which you were probably already focusing on keeping loyal in a normal or even golden age. Due to how loyalty works (population), dark ages just don't have that big of an effect - and on the contrary, they offer you access to powerful policies with powerful-but-usually-negligible drawbacks and as OP mentioned, easier access to super-bonuses.

Back to the main topic, I more or less agree with OP. The idea sounds great in theory but the fact that you basically get less for doing well at a disadvantage (as golden ages are harder to get when in one) is counter-intuitive. But I think worse than that, is that Dedications of all types (Dark, Normal and Golden) are too few in number, too specific, and too weak .

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Digihuman:

But I think worse than that, is that Dedications of all types (Dark, Normal and Golden) are too few in number, too specific, and too weak .

I agree with this point. The system is certainly a bit vanilla: More dedications with greater impact would make it more attractive.

Originally posted by Digihuman:

The idea sounds great in theory but the fact that you basically get less for doing well at a disadvantage (as golden ages are harder to get when in one) is counter-intuitive.

While strategically frustrating, the reason golden ages are more difficult to get consecutively is to make them periodic (i.e. just one age in length). If the player gets 5 golden ages in a row, it becomes more of a golden millennium, which isn't demonstrated historically.

Think of Rome for example: Between 500bc and 20bc, Rome was a republic. During this time, it greatly expanded its territory, developed a clear code of laws, captured lots of slaves, etc. As a result, around 20bc, Rome entered a golden age for the years of Caesar, who transformed Rome into a dictatorship. For the next 200 years, Rome was in a period of despotic rulers who eventually drove Rome into the ground through incompetence and decadence. Rome entered a dark age and was conquered around 500ad.

Eventually, Rome reemerged as a religious leader of the "West", and continues to be influential to this day. Think of this as Rome's heroic age, where Rome rose from the ashes and rebuilt itself as a religious leader rather than a conqueror.

Although I agree that the age system is underwhelming and could use a more diverse pool of dedications, the historical significance of this phenomenon would be ignored if the system made consecutive golden ages easy.

TL;DR: Yes more dedications, No consecutive golden ages, imo.

[Celebane]

I think that you should get 1 dedication for dark ages, 2 for normal and 3 golden ages. Heroic ages should be achieved only if you can string together 3 consecutive golden ages and net you 4 dedications. Also, dedications in general should be better. Right now they are all pretty underwhelming.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Celebane:

I think that you should get 1 dedication for dark ages, 2 for normal and 3 golden ages. Heroic ages should be achieved only if you can string together 3 consecutive golden ages and net you 4 dedications. Also, dedications in general should be better. Right now they are all pretty underwhelming.

The reason they don't give you anything extra for consecutive golden ages is so that it doesn't become too much of a win more mechanic. Similarly, the reason they made the strong dark age policies and the heroic age is to allow them to be used to catch back up.

[Celebane]

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

Originally posted by Celebane:

I think that you should get 1 dedication for dark ages, 2 for normal and 3 golden ages. Heroic ages should be achieved only if you can string together 3 consecutive golden ages and net you 4 dedications. Also, dedications in general should be better. Right now they are all pretty underwhelming.

The reason they don't give you anything extra for consecutive golden ages is so that it doesn't become too much of a win more mechanic. Similarly, the reason they made the strong dark age policies and the heroic age is to allow them to be used to catch back up.

I get what you're saying... that's why I suggested it requiring 3 consecutive ages to get an heroic age. Three consecutive golden ages is pretty tough to pull off whereas going from a dark age to a golden age is quite easy.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Celebane:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

The reason they don't give you anything extra for consecutive golden ages is so that it doesn't become too much of a win more mechanic. Similarly, the reason they made the strong dark age policies and the heroic age is to allow them to be used to catch back up.

I get what you're saying... that's why I suggested it requiring 3 consecutive ages to get an heroic age. Three consecutive golden ages is pretty tough to pull off whereas going from a dark age to a golden age is quite easy.

It would be more of a king-of-the-hill style mechanic.

[Celebane]

Originally posted by Ozymandias:

Originally posted by Celebane:

I get what you're saying... that's why I suggested it requiring 3 consecutive ages to get an heroic age. Three consecutive golden ages is pretty tough to pull off whereas going from a dark age to a golden age is quite easy.

It would be more of a king-of-the-hill style mechanic.

Not really.... it's not like each age, golden or heroic is limited to a single civ each era. You can have multiple civs getting a golden or heroic depending on how each civ did in the previous age.

[gimmethegepgun]

Originally posted by Celebane:

Originally posted by gimmethegepgun:

The reason they don't give you anything extra for consecutive golden ages is so that it doesn't become too much of a win more mechanic. Similarly, the reason they made the strong dark age policies and the heroic age is to allow them to be used to catch back up.

I get what you're saying... that's why I suggested it requiring 3 consecutive ages to get an heroic age. Three consecutive golden ages is pretty tough to pull off whereas going from a dark age to a golden age is quite easy.

Which would be a win more mechanic.