 |
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
This is not a big thing, but nevertheless.
I sometimes find it frustrating that you reach the middleages in 800 bc, and modern age in 1200 AD.
This can happen if you are on Pangea and there is heavy tech trade going on. In other cases the science rate is also, well, ahistorical, while not so fast.
I have the preliminary understanding that now, apart from the basic economy, the science rate is decided by the number of civs, the size of the map, and the number of contacted civs which know the tech you are researching.
There needs to be a fourth inhibitator on science, because naturally science on Pangea will always progress faster than on archipelago.
Thus the map size calculation should be determined by the size of land, excluding sea tiles. So the more land the less science rate is.
Even this might not be enough. So maybe skip the science rate being affected by contacted civs.
The decreased corruption is also a reason for the increased science rate. So maybe one should increase science corruption, while keeping shields the way they were.
Another approach would be to simply raise the cost of researching techs.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Tripledoc
|
|
That is inherently true in terms of game mechanics.
However, I feel that civilisation is also somehow meant to be inspired by history.
In any case there needs to be a reworking of the years passed.
So then it should be so designed that the years pass at a quicker succesion than they do now.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Og
|
|
Lurking in Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
Jun 2001 time: 07:36
|
|
There are no IFs in history but if Sumerian knowledge hasn't been lost but instead kept progressing at the same rate then the first man in space would have flown a couple of millennia earlier. There have been a lot of times in real world history when knowledge was lost and had to be reinvented hundreds of years later. The sharing of knowledge in the real world was also never as perfect as it is in civ games.
So it is perfectly normal that technologies in civ games won't be researched around the years that they were researched IRL.
Having said that I think that the civ2 system for technology costs was a lot better and more realistic. The technologies in civ2 required more beakers if you had a lot of technologies and less when you had less advances. This means that if you went straight for republic it would take fewer beakers to research it than if you had invented everything else in the other branches of the tech tree.
Another thing that might help in improving the current research model would be to make it more difficult to trade technologies. Perhaps setting a rule that once you trade techs you can trade techs again only when 'n' turns have passed. Also setting some requirements like civs that don't have writing can’t trade techs that come after writing and civs that don’t have computers can't trade techs that come after computers in the tech tree.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sir Og
|
|
Lurking in Stara Zagora, Bulgaria
Jun 2001 time: 07:36
|
|
Blind research is a good idea, but I liked the civ2 style better. It used to give a random number of techs from the tech tree instead of allways giving all possible techs for research.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TimeTraveler
|
|
I'm not sure why having a large empire should directly cause the research cost of technologies to increase. Hasn't it been that in the real world, as populations increased since 1800, that the technology rate accelerated?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Bjarkehingrumme
|
|
Isn't this already implemented in CIV3? I usually set the research cost to about 1000 for normal size maps, and this works fine. You get to see all periods, and it usually follows history quite closely.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Fosse
|
|
U.S.A.
Mar 2002 time: 23:36
|
|
I agree that empire size should no longer be the major determining factor in how long it takes to research. Either in calculating cost, as suggested in this thread, or by increasing gold going to research, as in previous games.
Average per capita in the country would be a better number to use. A billion poor people won't invest as much into laboratories as a few hundred thousand wealthy merchants in a single city, so let the game relfect that.
The player can directly influence research to a small degree by pouring more money in, as it is now, to meet the research cost. Or he could indirectly influence reserach speed by a great amount by working to increase the welfare of his people.
And addressing early posts: I agree that some tinkering should be done to make technology usually show up a little closer to when it "should." This should mean more tech, not fewer turns, and it should also mean adjusting the rules for tech cost to keep balance over difficulty levels. Making the game harder shouldn't mean that eras advance much more quickly, as it does in Civ 3 with all of the AI bonuses. Tech costs should increase according to any AI bonus to keep the feel of the game balanced on all levels.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|