later golden age --- WOW!!!

[reefer addict]

i think any golden age is a good golden age

if it comes early i can expand faster and build up markets and libraries fast

if it comes in the middle i focus on factories and wonders

if it comes late, look out, because its all military

[Wormwood]

My opinion is: Late GAs are good, because by then you can usually just build military units by the horde. But on the higher levels, a GA right after republic or monarchy is what you need to become viable to make it to late game.

[vmxa1]

I say again, a late GA is not worth anything. It is like giving Bill Gates a dollar, you think it will help much? I mean really, more military units, so what. I have already won and so have you if you are into the modern era. All we are talking about here is the size of the pile you are going to dump on them. Faster MI or MA due to GA, does what for you? Are you not spanking them already if you have MA? So yes any GA is good, just as $100 may always be good, but the money has more value when you have little, not so much is you are middle aged and have money in the bank. If you doubt that ask a teenager to do something for it and then ask his Dad to do the same thing.

[Theseus]

$100 ??

Wanna buy my world map? I'll throw in spices...

[mrmitchell]

Both early and late golden ages can make/break your empire... Generally how I play the best time is late Ancient/early Midieval or Industrial. But that's just me.

[Theseus]

Everyone should try AU 105... many different approaches, and results, to optimizing the benefit of the GA.

[vmxa1]

Well I understand that english is not everyone primary language. None the less words have meanings. If one wants to say that a late GA is more fun or they like it, that is irrefutable. If one says that it is better than others, that is verifiably false. I had one in 1954 yesterday it produced huges amounts as I had a massive empire. It did not make a bit of difference in the out come as I had really already won. Two days ago I had a GA in acient times when I was under attack and having a hard time. I would have like the GA to come a little latter, but it allowed me to beat my foe. That is the point. If all we are talking about is how much the GA will product, then late is better. I submit that making an impact on the game is more valuable. I mean really you do not even need them at all most of the time. So give us the parameters and terms and then we can make a conclusion. Absent that, I take late GA to be into the modern era and better to mean how they impact the game. I maintain that once you are into the modern era it is only a mop up at any level and I play them all.

[Theseus]

I agree re modern, but a GA in the industrial era, especially when you are first building Tanks (from scratch), can be very powerful.

[hr_oskar]

Well yeah, GA = good, especially if you're not yet number one.

Some thoughts on early despotic GA's (if you must have them):

1. If you're not religious, don't switch governments even if you get a better one during the GA! A GA in Anarchy sucks for very obvious reasons.

2. Micromanage your cities very carefully: make sure they're always using tiles that already produce at least one shield and one commerce - e.g. mined grasslands next to the river. Don't use forests or hills, you'll usually get high production out of your more fertile areas anyway. Start your GA by going through your cities, adjusting according to the above.

3. Micromanage your workers according to the policy above - build mines on your normal grasslands, prioritize roadbuilding in tiles with no trade; stop chopping jungles, think short-term!

4. Use the momentum - be a little brave, use your despotic GA to cripple your neighbours through war. Stop waiting for some unit that's 5 techs away; successful wars can be fought at any point in the game.

This also applies to any early GA:

5. If you can't do much useful with your workers, add them to your cities... again, think short-term! As a GA citizen, your worker can potentially contribute much more to your empire.

6. Micro-manage unhappiness. Stricter than ever. Make sure to have no civil disorder during your GA, not even one city for one turn. In Civ3 it's simply unnecessary to suffer civil disorder, because it's easier to manage than in the older games (reason: cities don't go in disorder immediately after new population has been added, but rather only as soon as you end your turn).

7. Prioritize city growth. Invest in aqueducts where needed. Also prioritize your core - forget about long-term investments at your frontiers. Remember that GA citizens are more valuable than usual, so be more skeptical about building settlers and workers. Consider adding existing workers to your core cities, especially slaves (being less efficient).

And of course, the less there's left of your GA, the less the above points apply!

[Catt]

IMHO the "optimal" timing of a GA is very game dependent. I take the view (like others) that "optimal" translates roughly to the time during the game when it can provide you with the most relative advantage. More often than not in my games this means Ancient or Middle Ages; sometimes it means Industrial Ages and sometimes it means Modern Ages. Very much depends on particular game circumstances.

All else being equal, I very much like a late ancient age / early middle age GA - lots of city improvements to build and lots of wonders I typically like to have. I don't like despotic GAs, but an Aztec Warrior induced ultra-early GA can sometimes seal the victory in the BC years. Other times, particularly on an archipelago map where truly effective inter-continental invasions aren't really palatable to me until the availability of the eight-unit Transport, and often finding myself narrowly trailing without a lot of early warfare, a late Industrial or early Modern Age GA can secure the UN, or give me the boost I might need to build the spaceship before a stronger foe gets there.

Catt

[vmxa1]

Yup, I am not making a case for any one time being better than another, and it is game depend as to when it is most benificial. I am only saying that late can not be the best time except for the sheer joy of it.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Yup, I am not making a case for any one time being better than another, and it is game depend as to when it is most benificial. I am only saying that late can not be the best time except for the sheer joy of it.

Fair enough. For example, if you find yourself isolated early on in the game and can't use the early GA to "liberate" nearby territory from your neighbors and extort cash and tech from them, a later GA is better because you could use the production to either A) catch up on critical infrastructure during the middle ages or B) build a massive army of conquest in the cav/inf/arm era.

But you're right; it's highly game-specific and depends heavily on the player's style and preferences. The Jaguar Rush is a potentially successful gambit because you *can* pump out so many of the little buggers thanks to the early GA. OTOH, if you're a builder type, you'll avoid the UU GA like the plague if you play the Aztecs to put it off until you can use it to build your many libraries, cathedrals and banks.

[mrmitchell]

In one game I started on a fairly small continent with one other civ, the Zulus. After discovering another few civs on other ocntinents, it was early Midieval and I wanted the Zulu half of the continent. So I built up a small army of Immortals (I was persia) and declared war. The immortals ran into their border cities and I got a golden age from a victory.

With all the extra benefits from that golden age, I was able to whomp the Zulus into the ground. (I think without the GA, it would have been a long, protracted, difficult stalemate.)