 |
|  |
 |
|
dexters
|
 |
Vancouver, Canada
Nov 2001 time: 05:28
|
|
I voted for bannanas
But Azeem has a point. The tech tree in Civ3 is basically the same one we got in Civ1 and Civ2.
The modern age has long known to be in need for more variety.
Adding say... 5 to 6 techs at the end of the modern age tech tree would be interesting.
Perhaps in Civ 4, they will flesh out the modern age and introduce a new age, the post-modern (which we are in currently) and move the spaceship to PoMo. While concentrating on techs in the modern age such as the vacuum tube (for TVs), Media centers, Activism small wonder (increases war weariness in all governments, but also increases production, reduces pollution and reduces chance of culture flip), The Transnational Corporation (new wonder).
Last edited by dexters on 30-05-2003 at 10:51
|
|
|  |
 |
|
nbarclay
|
 |
Huntsville, Alabama
Dec 1999 time: 23:28
|
|
To the extent that entering the modern age in the 1600's or earlier is a problem, I think it's a calibration problem, not a game balance problem. Right now, the balance between tech advances and construction speed is excellent, providing new things to build about as quickly as the older improvements can be completed. If the rate of tech advancement were slowed down, there would be a lot more time when players have nothing better to build than troops or wealth, which would undercut the key strategic choice of how to balance military production against economic, scientific, and cultural production. Further, if the tech pace were slowed down, that would drag out the game even more for players pursuing a peaceful victory.
And personally, I don't view space race victories by 1600 AD as particularly a problem. Entering space around 1400 instead of around 1960 is less than a 10% difference in number of years since 4000 BC, and it's hard to argue that mankind couldn't have gotten into space about 10% faster than we did if we'd managed our world better. Obviously, the difference in terms of number of turns is far greater, but the representation of fewer years per turn toward the end does wonders for keeping actual dates of victory sane.
I voted "Techs should cost the same," but I'd like to qualify that. To the extent that new city improvements are introduced, adding new techs or adding to the cost of existing ones to counterbalance the time required for a good city to build those new improvements would be a good idea. The real key is to keep the pace of technology about the same relative to the pace at which cities can keep up with the latest technology.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Worthingtons
|
|
Pride Park,Derby
Jan 2002 time: 05:28
|
|
I think they should all cost the same, it is elitist to think some should be worth more than others!!
Damn Capitalists.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Well yeah, the fall of the Roman Empire put us back at least 750 years, but you've got to remember: Rome could have easily stood in a Civ3 game, management or not--there were more reasons for its fall than Civ could emulate correctly.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28. Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|