 |
What do you believe would be a good science tax at this point?
This poll is closed. |
| 0% (Science collected: 0, Turns to Advance: ---, Gold collected: 21) |
   |
1 |
5.88% |
| 10% (Science collected: 3, Turns to Advance: 292, Gold Collected: 19 |
   |
0 |
0% |
| 20% (Science collected: 6, Turns to Advance: 146, Gold collected: 17) |
   |
0 |
0% |
| 30% (Science collected: 8, Turns to Advance: 110, Gold collected: 15) |
   |
0 |
0% |
| 40% (Science collected: 11, Turns to Advance 80, Gold collected: 13 |
   |
0 |
0% |
| 50% (Science collected: 14, Turns to Advance: 63, Gold collected: 11) |
   |
16 |
94.12% |
| Abstain |
|
0 |
0% |
| Total: |
17 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Locutus
|
|
ACS CTP1/2 Manager & Civ4 Co-Manager
|
 |
Hengelo, The Netherlands
Nov 1999
time: 06:25
|
|
This is not something I would want to change myself, but I would like to hear the opinion of the people on it.
Some, especially Oerdin, have argued that the Science tax should be lowered so we can rush-buy units faster. Currently it looks like we'll be building a Settler and not Warriors, as Oerdin wants, but a Settler too can be rush-bought, which could significantly cut on its production time and allow us to switch to Warriors faster.
The downside is of course that this will make it take longer before we research Ballistics and thus before we can start building Archers. Without Archers we can't launch a real offensive or properly defend ourselves when attacked. Also, we will fall further behind on our opponents technologically, while we are already at a considerable disadvantage.
So, what should our tax rate be? Keep pushing for Ballistics or sacrifice some or all science for faster production? (Note that the statistics mentioned in the poll only apply to this turn: city growth, building new cities and other developments may alter them)
This poll will expire in 3 days, on Thursday ~23:00 GMT.
Last edited by Locutus on 21-01-2003 at 04:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Maquiladora
|
|
Well the best way to increase science at this stage is by owning more cities, so if tax is gonna be set at <50% to rush buy, then we should rush buy a settler because we dont want war yet...
The extra gold collected is marginal though, so I still prefer maximum science.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mapfi
|
|
Zurich, Switzerland
Jul 2002
time: 06:25
|
|
the extra gold is not worth it - science!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Turambar
|
|
England
Apr 2002
time: 05:25
|
|
We need Archers! Keep it as it is!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
its a difference of only 10 gold per turn. Not enough to make a critical difference
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
it will be a long way from 10 turns meaningful. When given a choice between science and gold, take the science.
When the city grows there will be more of a decision to be made.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-01-2003 03:58
|