CSU's versus abilities and golden ages

[lord of the mark]

OK, so the CSU's themselves wont be that unbalancing - one more movement point for an archer. I think the unique abilities may be more significant - and I am especially concerned about the golden ages.

this will contribute to the rise and fall of civilizations - yes, a good thing, one many of us have asked for. But (to the extent ti works at all) it will tend to determine the WHICH civs rise and fall, in which order. Thus Babylonians will rise early, and fall early, Romans later than that, and Americans at the end. This will impress those who think that imitating the sequence of actual history makes Civ more "historically accurate" but to me it seems like a move to "history on rails" and away from historically rooted gameplay.

LOTM
(Starting to lean toward the pessimists)

[tniem]

I don't know. It appears that the golden ages could be very balanced.

If I play with the Babylonians I will get a boost early on in the game that could help me conquer some neighbors and have an advantage throughout the rest of the game.

Meanwhile, the Romans have the boost just when they start falling behind. They are able to catch up and slightly go ahead for a while. They will need to take advantage of the age to catch me.

Now, if I am playing the Americans, I will just have to survive most of the game. If I can stay competitive my boost will put me in a position to win the game. Most likely the golden age will happen about 1960 for a few years. Still leaving the last few battles happening after the age for a fun end game.


It should certainly be interesting.

[BeBMan]

I thought it was said that the "Golden Age" option can be switched off, so I see no problem here.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem
I don't know. It appears that the golden ages could be very balanced.

If I play with the Babylonians I will get a boost early on in the game that could help me conquer some neighbors and have an advantage throughout the rest of the game.

Meanwhile, the Romans have the boost just when they start falling behind. They are able to catch up and slightly go ahead for a while. They will need to take advantage of the age to catch me.

Now, if I am playing the Americans, I will just have to survive most of the game. If I can stay competitive my boost will put me in a position to win the game. Most likely the golden age will happen about 1960 for a few years. Still leaving the last few battles happening after the age for a fun end game.


It should certainly be interesting.

well thats ok for the bab's (who really should get a boost out of the starting gate) and the americans ( who really shouldnt appear till 1607)

how about, say, the romans and the english - the romans will move ahead early, and the english will have to catch up later - but WHY? If romans get techs earlier, due to their proximity to babylonians, that would follow history - but this way, on a random map, an english civ that starts near the bab's and trades techs like mad will still be a "late civ" relative to a remote roman start. Or on a real world map a roman civ that plays isolationist, against an english civ that makes early contact, will still get the advantages that historically Rome got only because it WAS culturally open to Greece and the east.

In other words in actual history there WAS a sequence of rise and falling empires - BUT this sequence was related to geographic location and civ strategy - this system forces a sequence regardless of geography and civ strategy - thats why I call if "history on rails"

interesting, it may be - but ive seen it before - Age of Empires - early civs, try to take advantage of an early lead, late civs try to hold on till "their" era. Now it will play differently in Civ3 - an early civ will be able to build on its lead by cultural and economic development rather than the military "rush" of AOE. But its still "uncivish" in that the shape of play is determined (ahistorically I might add) by civ idenity, not by geography and strategy.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
I thought it was said that the "Golden Age" option can be switched off, so I see no problem here.

Im supposed to spend $50 (US) AND upgrade my computer for a game for which Im turning off several of the features that the designers put lots of time and effort into? And this when i have not yet played all of Bebro's highly acclaimed civ2 scenarios

Yes. I'll probably buy Civ3. But based on what i currently see, if I pay more than $30(US) - which probably means waiting quite a while - I'll eat my hat. I think.

Let me look at a few more of the "Civ of the weeks" If they are as innocous as the bab's, i may raise that to 40. If they are as bad as I fear, I may lower it to 20.


LOTM
(not commited on the hat eating yet)

[Comrade Tribune]

Did anyone notice this?

If, as I suppose, the German special unit is panzers, then the German 'golden age' is Nationalsocialism. I´d say this is well below the belt. German players won´t be too amused.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Did anyone notice this?

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
If, as I suppose, the German special unit is panzers, then the German 'golden age' is Nationalsocialism. I´d say this is well below the belt. German players won´t be too amused.

err, I don't think this is the case

INMO, Golden Age is just a name Firaxis gave to the 20 turns of extra arrows and shields that starts when your special unit wins its first battle.

I don't think there is a separate name for each golden age of each civ. And when the golden age of Germany begins depents utterly upon when they built and deploy their Panzer (it can even be in the middle ages if you have the necessairy science right? (or is it forbidden to built modern units in unnapropriate ages - that would suck)