The one big reason I bought this game is because it sells itself about "gaining era stars" and that the key to victory isn't painting the map, being the biggest guy on the map, or any of that. It's being remembered, and doing wonderful things, etc.

Except... it's not... It's like every other 4x game ever made.. Despite the little extra bells and whistles and interesting era star points, it means nothing. You have to get big to get stars.. you have to expand to get stars, you have to do literally everything you have to do normally in any 4x game to win... to win....

The "uniqueness" of this game is really just smoke and mirrors when you get down to it... The era's are interesting, but you stay in them so shortly that it doesn't matter... The transition between 1 culture/nation and another via era's is rushed, and feels weak.. There is no exploring, and living as that culture/nation. There's nothing.. It's just another 4x game where instead of just playing as the nation you chose, it's literally just choosing a new nation to play as each time an era passes..

It would literally be no different than civilization forcing you to choose a new nation everytime you hit a new era.. that's literally all it is in the end.. and it makes me sad.
---------------------------

Era's need to be slowed down.. Tech tree expanded more than 4x its size, and let era's feel like era's.. not quick jumping stone.. Allow interplay with nations, and allow the game to play out.

Cruor34 wrote:

I disagree with the first part. The "Winners" in real life are always the big guys... that is how it should be. Alexander the Greats Empire (well, it didn't last long but he was winning score by miles while it did), Roman Empire, USA and China now. You don't "win" in the eyes of the world by having less people in your country than a big city and having no military or economic power but hey... at least you have free healthcare... like it or not, USA would have a much higher score than say... Denmark would. What do you want to be graded on if not population, land mass, science and economic/industrial power? 

As for the rest, I agree... eras go by WAY too quickly, even on the slow game setting. I would like to see more techs/gaps filled it. Perfect example, going from Line infantry - WW2 infantry is missing a few steps. I was in the last era and had modern glass sky scrapers representing my cities when I was in early 1800s tech level because I just blast through the eras simply by building a district or two and killing an enemy unit. It's way too easy to get era stars. I also have to agree, I really don't like changing cultures... it's just weird... I LIKE the idea of being able to change abilities (ike expansionist/agriculture/economic based on my situation and strategy, but I don't want to change who my people are..... perfect example, for my gameplay style, Soviets are perfect.... but, I grew up knowing the Soviets are the bad guys, the evil commies. I have nations I want to play as, but for my game play styles, a lot of them suck, so I have to choose to play as a people I like but they have shitty bonuses or a people I don't like/don't identify with but I have to choose them if I want the best bonuses. 

I disagree on your first point.

Aztecs for example, had a huge empire, but.. they were technologically backwards even by those days. Yet, they are remembered in history, and are considered a great and memorable empire. Which is what this games era's, and stars are supposed to represent, even though they all died off, and disappeared.

Even the ancient Timbuktu in Africa was a source of great knowledge and wealth, and is still to this day revered as an ancient scholarly wonder in many ways.

Then lets not forget about the Ancient Egyptians as well. Current Egypt is a pale shadow to its former glory, and is still revered for its ancient advances in terms of the Pyramid, great sphinx, and other crowning achievements.

Yes, you can't be tiny and be a powerhouse militaristically like your examples, but that isn't what this game was supposed to represent with era stars, it was supposed to represent memorable, and great achievements, yet all the achivements are exactly the same thing. "Get big, or go home".

You were supposed to be able to accumulate stars, and not even have to rush era's to win.

If for example, finding key tech first gave you a very large boost, rapidly expanding, or having a vast amount of citizens, etc.Or creating a large amount of world wonders in a specific era giving you a huge multiplier to your score, etc.

Even if you were to end up "falling" like Egypt in grace and power, you could end up still "winning" in terms of era stars for still being the most memorable, and most honored culture/nation as a whole.

This especially would be able to be done if each era was drastically slowed down, and allowed to play out more.

LadyAthena wrote:
Aztecs for example, had a huge empire, but.. they were technologically backwards even by those days. Yet, they are remembered in history, and are considered a great and memorable empire.

They were, until they met someone who was more technologically advanced and stronger. So it proves the point that stronger/bigger/better usually wins.

LadyAthena wrote:
Even the ancient Timbuktu in Africa was a source of great knowledge and wealth, and is still to this day revered as an ancient scholarly wonder in many ways.

Do you know what Mali looks like now? If history was a game I wouldn't say they won it.

It's just like that - bigger one is usually stronger. If so - he can do whatever he wants, including conquering others and making himself even stronger in the process. That's how life works, that's how 4X games work. I don't see it's a reason to be angry at another 4X game which does that. Actually thanks to fame mechanics - you can still win even if you're smaller - if you actually care about some meaningless "yay! You've won!" victory screen that is.