Is a Golden Age worth it?

[Quillan]

I've moved into the boat of "Golden Age via Taj Mahal or nothing". I used to save up unwanted great people for that, but after seeing Sensei's thread on Great Profits, I have no GPs left around. Everything I get is either used immediately or built into a city as a super specialist. The only exception being great engineers, which I'll usually keep around if I don't have a wonder to rush right now. I don't feel they're worth it. In Civ 3, the golden age was part of my playing strategy. In Civ 4, I've gone several games without ever having one, and never felt the lack.

[nbarclay]

My tendency thus far is to use great people for other purposes early in the game, but to trigger golden ages late in the game (mid-industrial or later). Super-specialists, Academies, and religious shrines have their greatest value if they are built early. But toward the end of the game, there isn't time for them to provide anywhere near as much benefit as a golden age would, especially for a large empire. Since the cost in GPs for triggering a GA goes up with each successive GA, I tend to save my "cheap" GAs for late in the game when other uses of GPs have a lower relative value.

[Aeson]

I've used all 5 GAs in a game. Even the 5 GP one was a no-brainer. It's all about the situation. In an OCC, GAs are worthless. On a Huge map on your way to Domination though...

The reason the GAs take progressively more GP is that GAs are often the best way to increase what you have. So if you use them right, each GA should be working with a bigger empire than the last.

[cal_01]

It really depends on the situation, I guess.

GAs are really good for war prep (especially with Police State.. 1-2 turn Cavalries or 1 turn riflemen!). Plus, sometimes I find that I don't really need an extra specialist, so I save them up.

I always use Great Merchants and Artists, though.

[abman]

Originally posted by Aeson
I've used all 5 GAs in a game. Even the 5 GP one was a no-brainer. It's all about the situation. In an OCC, GAs are worthless. On a Huge map on your way to Domination though...

The reason the GAs take progressively more GP is that GAs are often the best way to increase what you have. So if you use them right, each GA should be working with a bigger empire than the last.

What does OCC mean? Keep seeing people use that abbreviation...

[solo]

Sorry for not spelling it out, as I believe Aeson was reminding me how the value of Golden Ages can vary depending on your playing preferences or style.

OCC means One City Challenge, a game where the human player is only allowed to have one city.

OCC first became a popular variant in Civ II, and has been enjoyed ever since in subsequent versions of the game.

In Civ IV, OCC was included in the design of the game, and is one of the options available when setting up a Custom Game.

[joncnunn]

Re: Is a Golden Age worth it?

Almost always something instant will be better than the superspecialists.

This includes a GA, athough I usually prefer using two instant powers to a GA and always prefer three instant powers to a GA.

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
OK, so you get a short term boost to research and production. However, if you make the two GPs into superspecialists the boost you get lasts the rest of the game (doesn't it?) Alternatively, you can get a lot of research by using them to discover a new technology. And there's your religion's special building or a culture bomb if one of them is a Great Artist.

What am I missing? Is there some technique to get more out of a golden age?

RJM at Sleeper's

[Aeson]

Super Specialists are very useful in standard settings. So are GAs. So are the Tech, Rush, Trade, Shrine, Academy, and Great Work options. Which ones are the "best" options depends on how you've set yourself up to use them. (That can include game settings too.)

[Aeson]

Originally posted by solo
Sorry for not spelling it out, as I believe Aeson was reminding me how the value of Golden Ages can vary depending on your playing preferences or style.

It was not my intent to target your statements specifically, but rather to illustrate how extremely different playstyles lead to extremely different valuations. OCC is the extreme where GA is the least valuable option, and Huge map Domination is the opposite extreme.

[Caligula 37 AD]

I did some calculus on my last Golden Age triggered by one GArtist and one GScientist in the Industrial era of AU course 100-A.
The numbers are not 100% correct as I only did a comparision between the last turn
of the GA, and the first turn after. But it gives you an idea of the power of GAs

I am at work now, and my notes and screenshots are back home. This is what I wrote in my DAR:

I was running 90% science, 10% gold. I had 11 cities working 112 tiles of which 20 were coast and
23 specials with commerce bonus including towns/hamlets, fur, ivory, gold, wine, silk etc:
Hammers: GA increased production by 31,3% (246 vs 358)
Commerce: GA increased by 18% (I worked exactly the same tiles. 404 vs 492)
Science: GA increased by 18% (Estimate, as I built Oxford in that turn twisting the calculus a bit. I've tried to subtract its effect)
Trade routes: Next to NO effect. Only 2 trade routes were +1cpt higher in the last GA turn than the one after.

To summarize: GA gave me about 850 extra hammers, 640 extra beakers and some 60 extra gold over the 8 turns.
Was that worth it? Probably not IMO, at least not this one

Anoteher effect I discovered:
Golden Ages and Fin trait are not cummulative, i.e. plains normaly giving 1cpt, gives 2 under GA (not 3).
This statement is then not correct if my observations are:

Originally posted by Handel
In my case the inca have financial leader too. Which means every square with 1 commerce produced 3 commerce, not 2.

I only had 11 cities, which is 5 less than the break-even-number computed by Blake earlier, also my cities were smaller. I have not finished the game yet, I might trigger another one late modern era to get a more relevant computation.

- C

[Derelict]

Blake, Caligula

While your approach to the anaylsis of the value of a GA holds some value, I think it overlooks some key aspects in terms of strategic value.

For example, if you have a great scientist, we might hypotheically say that they would earn you x number of hammers and x number of beakers over the term remaining in the game, by them being added as a super-specialist to a city. At the same time, they could be used to immediately provide x beakers to the discovery of a near-term technology, let's say "Guilds" for sake of argument.

Now, to further clarify this, let me assign some arbitrary values to the above to make my point. The Great Scientists may provide

// As Super-Specialist //
400 hammers and 2400 beakers over the course of 200 turns, this including modifiers due to buildings, national wonders, etc., OR

// Spent as "Discovery" //
An immediate +1200 beakers toward the discovery of Guilds (which costs 900 beakers, and therefore also provides +300 beakers overage).

It would reasonably seem that the better investment, in a raw analysis, would provide that the scientist is best used as a super specialist. You will receive the largest benefit over time, we presume from these numbers, by utilizing them in that way.

However, it overlooks the strategic value of having immediate access to the guilds technology, which would then permit the player to begin production of knights--a military unit that may, in effect, be substantial in a current conflict against an enemy who is yet to have discovered the technology. The net result from this may be two or more captured cities added to the players civilization, perhaps even extremely valuable cities in terms of either production or science, or both.

How then do we add the strategic value of this into our analysis? It may, in fact, be far better of an investment to take the short term +1200 beakers from the scientist rather than the long term +200 hammers/+2400 beakers by spending them as a super-specialist, thanks to our enhanced ability to capture enemy cities who, in the end, produce far more than +200 hammers/+2400 science.

Now, to relay this more toward the discussion at hand, I would point out that this sort of thinking should also be applied to a Golden Age. There may, in fact, be far more value in the use of 2+Great People by triggering a Golden Age then there would be by utilizing them in any other potential manner that they offer, despite appearences from a simple number crunch. For example, a Golden Age might permit the rapid building, nationwide, of Libraries, Conservatories, or Universities (thereby enhancing nationwide science by 25%), of Forges or Factories (thereby enhancing nationwise production by 25% or 50% respectively), or of much more rapid unit production in order to wage a current or potential war against the enemy.

In the end, it may achieve a short term goal for the player that will let them advance in a way that, over the term of the game, will actually be much more valuable then it appears those 2+ GP's would be on paper.

So we have to look at the productive result of a golden age, not merely in terms of x number of tiles worked for x number production/commerce, because those hammers or commerce benefits may relay some stronger strategic value at various points in the game, or in any particular game, then they appear to in a general analysis. At the very least, two less desirable GP's, from the players perspective, may result in far greater results through the use of a GA in a way contrary to what they could provide otherwise.

Take, for example, a prophet and great artist used to trigger a GA. The result of the GA could be greatly enhanced research which is directed research (the player can choose what technologies are discovered in an accelerated fashion), as opposed to using each of the GP's independently to add to the discovery of pre-selected technologies.

All I'm trying to point out here is that there is more value to a GA then a simple number analysis will provide. There are greater strategic implications that result from a GA than simple some easily determined X-factor. Know what I'm saying?

With this viewpoint in mind, the question then becomes; What ways could we use a GA to add a significant benefit, strategically, to our gameplay?

[Caligula 37 AD]

Originally posted by Derelict
All I'm trying to point out here is that there is more value to a GA then a simple number analysis will provide. There are greater strategic implications that result from a GA than simple some easily determined X-factor. Know what I'm saying?

With this viewpoint in mind, the question then becomes; What ways could we use a GA to add a significant benefit, strategically, to our gameplay?

..and that is exactly what this forum is for.. exelent point!

The number crushing can of course never replace the strategic analysis of whatever situation you are at, but it can give an overall idea of what one can expect if one chooses to push the GA-button. I was trying to show that GAs are not highways to heaven.

And besides, my number crushing does not exclude GAs as profitable in mere numbers either. Putting some value to the hammers, two-three more cities at two-three extra size, and suddenly also the x-y adds up. (It just didn't in my case above)

But let me add a little to the greater discussion. When, in my opinion, is a GA the right choice?
Y1. When at war with a evenly tech opponent, if I lack 2-3 tech to make f.ex. cavalry, or even as early as cats (not very likely as I tend to have few specialist early, giving me few early game Gmen), certanly Modern Armor, and certanly MechInf if in a defensive war
Y2. When at war, beeing pushed back b/c I make just a hair to few units (the 30% or so increased hammers could be crucial)
Y3. When in a space race. This is a no-brainer IMO.
Y4. Builder game, when the time is right.
Y5. Taj Mahal, even if rushed by a GEngineer

And contrary; when, in my opinion, is a GA the wrong choice?
N1. Techrace peacetime midgame. Unless I have a large civ with well developed cities, and the x-y seem to be favorable (here the number crushing can have a strategical value, but generaly one doesn't bother to calculate them. Blake's (and my) thumb rules is the nearest we have yet)
N2. Very early. Again a no-brainer I think. The per turn is way strong
N3. GA cost three or more Gmen, and none of the Y# above is true. (Again some number crushing could be useful as 3Gmen will be worth it if the civ is large enough, or if time is late enough)

And finaly, in a bulider-game the number crushing, or valid thumb rules, on when to trigger GAs, is very important. Getting to the end goal fastest is the whole strategy. The trick is to use them early enough to make an impact, and late enough for them to be valuable. And you don't want to use the cheap 2Gmen GA early if you are not sure you will get 3 different Gmen later for the real boost.

My point is: YES strategical choices can and should make you trigger the GA even if the x-y is not favorable. But some general idea of how much one can expect in raw numbers is never bad, is it?

Originally posted by Derelict
There are greater strategic implications that result from a GA than simple some easily determined X-factor.

"..easily.."? Oh yes! Time consuming? That too...

- C

[joncnunn]

Myself, I wouldn't dream of wasting the Great Artist on anything other than a 4000 culture boost to one of my border cities.

In almost all cases, that will be enough to get control of your full 21 city working radius if you weren't already, plus in many cases take away some of the tiles being worked by a nearby rival city.
Priceless!

Similarly, the Great Merchant's trade mission is just too good to pass up, with my results of 1200 - 1800 per mission. Apply that directly on unit upgrades, and your military may be in good position to go conquer a neighboring city. And even if your not a war mongler, will make your opponents think twince about declaring war on you.

The Shrine is also too good to pass up, only there's only 7 religions, but afterwords the options go down, and so when you already have a shrine for the religion(s) you founded, triguring a GA is a good option with a GP.

Using the Enginner to rush a useful world wonder in also too good to pass up, but sometimes there's not a useful world wonder that can be built.

Sometimes there's just not a good site for an Academy, particularly after you've built a few, and sometimes the tech being offered is very weak, and so that sometimes makes the GA a good use for the Scientist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by joncnunn
Myself, I wouldn't dream of wasting the Great Artist on anything other than a 4000 culture boost to one of my border cities.

Yeah. I always save up my Great Artists for culture bombs.

[Arrian]

I have taken to making them into superspecialists in border cities... that way, my border expansion is more of an insidious creep rather than a BOOM! event. The BOOM sometimes will trigger a war I'm not looking for, whereas the slower, steadier way gives me some time to make sure I'm ready for the border tensions.

I believe that buildings can modify a great artist specialists' output (base 12 cpt). Without modifiers, it would take 334 turns to get to 4000. But add in a cathedral or two and/or the Hermitage, and things look different...

-Arrian