 |
|
Maquiladora
|
|
I dont agree. Didnt only military science improve in wartime? And i dont think going to war needs any more incentives in gameplay terms.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002 time: 00:23
|
|
And of course in the late game, this could evolve:
warfare->v-2 rockets->Apollo->tang
of course, tang=transcendence and you win the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SK138
I don't know if this is possible to do or not in the editor but I think science rate should go up when you're at war. In just about every war, epecially the US civil war, technology increased very quickly. Anyone agree or know a way this could be done? |
Two observations --
1. Major wars often occur during times of rapid technological change, which generally coincide with rapid social change, which coincides with revised views of strength, as tech progress is hardly ever uniform between nations/civs/what-have-you -- simplistically put, the industrialized North didn't need slaves whereas the largely agrarian South did. IIRC, the only major Confederate tech innovation -- albeit a huge one! -- was the ironclad (yep, I know, the Hunley as 1st submarine -- at once brilliant and an utter failure).
2. Major wars also suppress non-military advances -- WW2 basically put the television on the back-burner for its duration.
-Oz
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Gen.Dragolen
|
|
I think the game already does a decent job with the mobilization option.
Increased production and "military only" related production focus the results of your previous innovations that otherwise would have languished for decades in research labs. Most of the German "super weapons" had been in R&D by the university scientists all through the 1930's, but weren't rushed into service until 1944, when it was already too late for them to do any good.
And something people don't realize is that WW II started almost 5 years too early for the Nazi "Master Plan" - their economy wasn't fully mobilized until 1944 when they realized that they had lost in Russia (read 'Mobilized' status vs. Normal).
Countries like Great Britain, Canada were fully mobilized by 1940, and late 1942 for the United States. This is part of the reason for why things turned out the way they did.
Never underestimate the stupidity of great political leaders when it comes to war.
D.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
And something people don't realize is that WW II started almost 5 years too early for the Nazi "Master Plan" - their economy wasn't fully mobilized until 1944 when they realized that they had lost in Russia (read 'Mobilized' status vs. Normal).
|
Admiral Raeder actually promised Hitler that the German navy would be ready for war in 1946.
-Oz.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vondrack

|
 |
Praha, Czech Republic
Jan 2002 time: 06:23
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SK138
I don't know if this is possible to do or not in the editor but I think science rate should go up when you're at war. In just about every war, epecially the US civil war, technology increased very quickly. Anyone agree or know a way this could be done? |
While the observation is correct, its projection into the game is not. It was not the war itself that made science progress so fast. It was the huge resource investment made by warring parties (manpower & finances). You can have this even in the current incarnation of Civ3, if you raise your science budget while at war (say, to get a military tech ASAP), maybe even adding scientists... not effective game-wise, but that would be similar to what happened in the real world.
And as someone correctly pointed out, war often helped bring techs already known, but not yet used, into common use.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23. Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|