Overall I like the idea, but if I want to bee-line for, say, planetary invasion to overrun my neighbor quickly, I have to research a bunch of arbitrary things that aren't part of my research goal, just to get to the next 'age' so I can research planetary invasion. I guess I feel like it takes some control away from the player when planning research goals.
Please keep this discussion civil and stop badgering other users with repeated requests to answer your questions. Remember, this is a community of your fellow players, not in-game enemies who want to suck out your brains for breakfast.
Everybody is entitled to play as they wish. One persons strategy may not be your strategy.
Its too early for me to tell. Once the rest of the game gets closer to completion I think I'll have a better opinion on the Ages. If the game was purely based on combat and military victory, then I would say that the Ages, as they are, could use some work. But, like I said, there are still a ton of options missing from the game, so I'm not going to theorize how the Ages may or may not work in 6 months.
But marvin that's generalizing the way most people played from galciv1-2 to call it the age of "expansion"
and all those reasons were what most people try to do anyway. Build a balanced empire, but now the risk and "fun of failure" is gone and essentially replaced by repetitive maze march up the first era. IMHO.
I see what your getting at though and its ok, I think the AI is supposed to be better than that though.
(I love history and comedy. )
DARCA. !)
I'm friends with most of the people that post here frequently, and actually talk with half of them every other day or more. If there was a problem someone would tell me because I have a good relationship with two of the people I previously used as a example on steam.
Exactly! I believed they play a normal game like most people and have a balanced empire. So to have the ages is a bit redundant. My whole point, using the people defending this to help understand there logic.
DARCA.
I don't think there will be any worry about fun of failure. Bearing in mind that it's been many years since the last expansion for GC2 was released, and since then many games have explored that concept.
FTL, for instance. I have never beaten the enemy flagship, although I've had a lot of fun trying different strategies, weapons and basically just seeing what the next run to sector 8 throws at me.
Then there's Rimworld, which at the moment sees you employing steadily more devious strategies to survive the next wave of baddies or the next crazy random event. It's fun to figure out there what you can do better next time. For instance, if I dig into a mountain way ahead of time and build a hydroponics in there or have a big stockpile of raw food to cook, I can basically wait the attackers out, being sure to barricade the entrance once I've got my colonists safely inside.
The fun part is trying these strategies and not knowing if they're going to even work.
Something that happened often enough in GC2 is that you would basically have the game in the bag and have to do a lot of tedious mop-up to get a conquest win. I wouldn't be surprised if someone's scheming up some new events to keep you on your toes in such a late-game situation. Or, dare I say it, an AI storyteller which starts those events to keep the game from getting too stale.
Hopefully with some thought put into them first. Eventually you want to be able to finish the game, not be hit with a barrage of events that take you another 100+ turns to clean up when you were only 10 turns from winning in the first place.
Why dig into a mountain when you can build a space station to survive!
I would suggest that having ages isn't primarily to help players maintain a balanced empire (though I think ages promote good strategy and are user- and newbie-friendly). In any case, what I think having ages does is helps keep the game balanced across the board.
Due to the way the new tech tree works (in terms of specialization and that every tech has an in-game effect), some mechanism seems necessary to prevent players from too easily growing overpowered in any particular area. I could see an ageless system becoming punitive for players that take the balanced approach.
Also, technology and the improvements/bonuses new tech offers can't be separated from the bonuses provided by ideology. And don't forget about adjacency bonuses.
Due to the cumulative impact of these factors together, I see a mechanism like having ages as important. That said, I'm not opposed to some other balancing mechanism--but I think ages works well.
I want bee line for stock exchanges again! I had a little imagery office that operated like the wolf of wall street movie and was happy.
(sell me this pen... )
DARCA
The technology ages seemed like a good balancing mechanism to me, but I was a little unsure they were the best answer. Listening to the arguments pro and con, I am more and more convinced they are a good idea.
I'm not sure what the fuss is about? I mean Civ games have always had 'eras' and that's worked out fairly ok for that series.
The eras in Civ games did not stop you from researching 4-5 techs before getting into the medieval era or so. This requires you to research half the techs before entering the next age entirely. I'm not sure why the fuss beyond I see this tech on the screen and I can't research it and I want it now. It is a different requirement to move on to the tech tree.
The eras in Civ are different. They aren't hard blocks that prevent you from researching a tech because you haven't built up enough "era points" or what have you, by researching other techs. In Civ, once you get to a certain point, the era just changes, but you aren't blocked.
I'll go on record as favoring the Ages as a method for implementing cross tech requirements and game play balancing, but there should probably be more "Ages".
Just call them tech levels and have five or six or more.
--David
Ok going to throw my 2 cents worth in.
Right now the ages thing hasn't really bothered me other than why it's there. I am always a balanced type player and I haven't even been stopped once by the Ages to continue researching what I wanted.
I haven't tried mutiplayer but it would seem it was put there as an attempt to balance the game but defeats the point of the game. which is to conquer your enemies. I propose an option to allow age requirements in the start game menu. or even modified where in the ages you start.
my 2 cents worth.
Kanlei
Not necessarily. You could get along well with the other civs and research your way to a tech victory. You could ally yourself with the other civs and win a diplo victory. You could be friends with them and win through your amazing cultural influence. Military conquest is just one option.
I won lots of GC2 games that way...cause I'm just a really nice guy.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
