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.

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.

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.

Everybody is entitled to play as they wish. One persons strategy may not be your strategy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.