Why is an early golden age a bad thing?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Seems to me the whole purpose of any civ or civ style gameis to get a fast start. Early game pretty much sets the tone for the entire game.

With that in mind I question why folks have an aversion to an early golden age. Granted if you have a GA with only one or 2 cities your not getting a lot out of it but I would submit 4 or more cities gives you lots of early growth/conquering power that sets youup nicely for the rest of the game.

Seems a great way to get early game turn advantage.

Or am I missing something?

[Fitz]

Your missing the oportunity to later catapult yourself from slightly behind to way ahead. Personally, I just view it as timing when you are going to take the lead. If you can't retain the lead afterwards, then its a problem.

Thus my only qualms about a very early golden age is those which arise from my lack of confidence in my CivIII gaming skills. Given that my lack of confidence is large, and opinion of my skills poor, I prefer a late GA. Given that more often than not I keep the lead regardless of the time of the GA, maybe I need to revise my opinion.

The only other consideration is how early you want to take an obvious lead? Sticking out your neck can sometimes result in everyone else lining up to chop it off. Especially in multiplayer. My personal LAN SMAX experiences taught me to lurk like mad, until everyone expected me to do that and ganged up on me anyway.

[Arrian]

I like Medieval golden ages, because there are TONS of city improvements and wonders to be built then. Plus, by the mid-middle ages my warmongering is usually done and I've switched to republic, so I'll get the most out of it.

That's playing on Monarch. I have started playing with Emperor, and suspect that an ancient golden age may be more attractive on that level of play.

-Arrian

[W4r_Machine]

Later GA are more usefull b/c it jumpstarts your economy and everything else. During war, success rate is higher when in GA, at least on my games. The bigger your economy before GA the better because when GA rolls arround GOLD will be pouring into your treasure which is usefull when it comes to mass upgrade.

[Catt]

Early or late can both have huge benefits. As with all things civ, it depends heavily on circumstance.

To those who prefer a later GA, I would make the point that establishing an early lead in this game can often be determinative -- if it allows you to war and take 2 of 6 AI cities you have eliminated 33% of a civ empire -- tougher to do that when a civ has 25 cities.

To those who prefer an early GA, I would make the point that GAs in despotism do almost no more for you than a switch to Monarchy or Republic would do, and that by the middle ages you have a much broader spectrum of city improvements and wonders to build (since your progression up the tech tree has enabled marketplaces, cathedrals, etc.)

All that being said, I almost always prefer a later GA -- very late ancient age or very early middle ages at the earliest. My objections to early GAs are: (1) the GA in despotism complaint; (2) the fact that researching techs is so slow in the ancient age that the GA doesn't ever seem to act like the turbo boost it does in the middle ages; (3) with fewer available city improvements, I am forced to build a lot of military units; and, most importantly to me, (4) if I don't have a thorough understanding of the state of the world -- my opponents, their relative power, the map, etc. -- I risk triggering a GA when I can't fully utilize its benefits. An early GA offers a lot of "conquering power" as Ogie points out, but if I'm trapped on an island with only one other civ, I've spent all that conquering power and only weakened one opponent. A later GA (after broader knowledge of the world and its occupants, allows me to utilize the GA in its most effective manner.

Catt

[Artifex]

Do you like to turn tax rate real low and science real high to get advances every couple of turns?

Or turn of science and max tax rate to watch the gold pour in so you can max out improvements?

Which is best?

[Capt Dizle]

I still favor the latter until you get your cities built out. I can't see much sense in buying improvments either except in selected cases. I just use the cash to buy tech.

One of the reasons I like the Japanese is the timing of their golden age is just right for me.

[Coracle]

GA LATER than Ancient is generally best.

But one in Ancient times can indeed give a nice impetus and boost to put you in the lead, a lead I rarely relinquish.

Either way, you get your GA when your UU's activate it, usually. So pick your prefered civ.

[Tuberski]

I don't think when a GA happens is as important as what you do with it. I usually concentrate on 1 area, be it, production, research, or income. And stick with it throughout the 20 turns.

This is the advantage of a golden age.

[SlowwHand]

IMO, it doesn't make a rat's ass WHEN it happens, as long as it's planned for.
If you sift through all the details, it all balances out, in most cases.

[SomeOneElse]

early middle ages is about best, when youve mostly established yourself and have plenty of things to do with a golden age

[player1]

I like early golden age.

To me having late gold age is usualy a waste.

[vulture]

A big difference between the two is that the benefits of the late golden age are more obvious. Anyone who has played Japan or another medieval GA civ probably knows that a GA then can get you one or two more techs in the twenty turns (enough to give you a minor tech lead) and is often worth a wonder or two as well due to the production bonuses and head start due to tech lead. The tech lead usually vanishes pretty sharpish on the higher levels.

The early GA doens't produce many tangible benefits. It doesn't give you any kind of tech lead. What it can do is get you a few more cities a bit earlier than you would otherwise have had them, and possibly a bit more territory overall before you have to get serious about conquering your neighbours. You generally also end up with more military. The benefits of this are more or less hidden. The extra cities may gain you a wonder or two in effect, but they will be built some time after you GA has finished. The extra military may help you expand. All the extra cities end up gaining you cash and techs down the line, but the benefits are not associated with the GA directly, so we don't make the mental connection. The medieval GA produces benefits that are immediately apparent, so it appears to do more. Its actually very hard to compare the two meaningfully.

[gozpel]

I like early GA's, because I always try for the Great Library and can hoard loads of gold during that time...and if someone declares war against me, I easily buy a few freiends to fight my battles and continue with my own life

But I have to agree to the guy that mentioned middle ages...there is where you really can get a benefit from the GA. I have scored best in those games actually, but then it's just a long preceeding to the final line....I like challenges!

[Catt]

Originally posted by vulture
The extra cities may gain you a wonder or two in effect, but they will be built some time after you GA has finished. The extra military may help you expand. All the extra cities end up gaining you cash and techs down the line, but the benefits are not associated with the GA directly, so we don't make the mental connection. The medieval GA produces benefits that are immediately apparent, so it appears to do more. Its actually very hard to compare the two meaningfully.

Excellent point

Catt