Civ-style research vs MoO-style research vs SMAC style reseach

[Urban Ranger]

In the Civ series you can only research one advance at a time. In MoO (not MoO 2) you get spread out your research efforts in several areas. Same thing in SMAC/X.

However in SMAC/X you only get to specify which areas you want to emphasize your research in, but you don't get to specify what you are researching (blind research)

Which one do you prefer?

[TechWins]

I think being able to research as many things as you want should be allowed. As long as you have the preq. If you have the option to discover The Wheel and Ceremonial Burial and you want to research them at the same time you should be able to. So this would fall under the other category it seems like.

[Swissy]

I like the SMAC style of research as more realistic. I never really liked the civ-style as most games became who could research there way up to the best fighting units, neglecting any advances that didn't contribute to making a better fighting force. But I think the forced completion of each "age" tech tree will stop that

[JellyDonut]

It seems rather ridiculous to me that the leader of a nation determines what technology that nation should research (somehow knowing what that technology is) and a few years later it is researched. I like where they're going with the forced completion of each age (no more choosing between researching Polytheism or the Superconductor), but I would like to see the tech-gaining more random. For gameplay reasons, you should be able to define the civilization you rule and emphasized research would be a neat solution to that problem. So I chose SMAC-style based on what I've heard of it (I haven't played the game).

Edit: wrong word

[Ralf]

I voted Civ-style. Below is some additional arguments both for and against:
Click this Free option: Parallell tech-tree advancements thread.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by JellyDonut
It seems rather ridiculous to me that the leader of a nation determines what technology that nation should research (somehow knowing what that technology is) and a few years later it is researched. I like where they're going with the forced completion of each age (no more choosing between researching Polytheism or the Superconductor), but I would like to see the tech-gaining more random. For gameplay reasons, you should be able to define the civilization you rule and emphasized research would be a neat solution to that problem. So I chose SMAC-style based on what I've heard of it (I haven't played the game).

Edit: wrong word

But the leaders often do determine in what direction the research goes, during the space race to the moon, both Russia and America focused their research to space ships and everything and they knew what to expect, same goes with the atom bomb, the government knew what they would gain the a-bomb. Research is usually done with particular goals in mind, so you know some of things that you can get from them, maybe not everything. That is also an option, you can only see certain abilities you get when researching a tech, and the further you research the more you get to know about it. What you see can depend on the status of your civ
example:
Your civ is at war with another and you have to choose a new research project, you see "nuclear physics", and because you're at war you can only see that can build an atom bomb if you research this.
However if you were at peace, who would think about making a bomb, a new power plant is much more needed to support a growing population, so you only see that you can build a nuclear power plant if you research this tech.

I didn't play MoO, but from what i understand is that you can have multiple research projects and you know what you can gain from them, if that is true, than i'm for the MoO style of research.

WATERMELONS RULE!!!!!!!!....sorry :P

[Inverse Icarus]

i suppose when you say "SMAC RESEARCH" you mean BLIND RESEARCH.

well, when i played SMAC, i used it, and thats probably why i couldn't name more than 10 SMAC techs off the top of my head.

i like being able to pick the exact techs i want over the path i want, despite how unrealistic it is.

[General Ludd]

I voted for MOO, though you don't 'know what you are geting into' the technologies that are available in MOO are random, and you'll never be able to research all of them in one game. This works great in a game like MOO but it would be horrible in a civ game.

[SK138]

I think you should have a choice of blind research or pick which tech you want. Alpha Centauri had that option but from what I have read in some of the posts, it seems that not many people knew about the option. I am not really sure which option I like best. In a game like Alpha Centauri, I usually use the blind research because most of the techs are kind of confusing to me and I don't really know what leads to what, but in Civ games I know what each tech is and what it leads to. I am really leaning to the option though, because I will use both, sometimes one, sometimes the other.

[Colon™]

I loved the blind research in SMAC, you could direct you research into a certain area yet it cut into micromanagement and it also added an element of surprise.

[Grumbold]

SMAC style is not real life.

For most of history about the only influence rulers had over inventions was making their country attractive to live in, peaceful, prosperous and healthy. Occasionally they would be able to patronise voyages of discovery or new constructions but there isn't much they could do to foster the original intellectual processes.

In modern times discoveries have become far more definable because labs involving hundreds of staff and thousands of experiments are now possible. You can actively target the specific outcome you are looking for. Aiming for a new metallic alloy you are not going to find an advanced plastic or medical technique instead. Since SMAC is set in a high tech future I find its blundering around very strange except when related to the planetary life forms which is certainly a whole new field.

My ideal research approach is something like Imperialism II, including the espionage bonuses. The easiest way of stopping a runaway victory in Civ would be to avoid the Science lead snowballing. Imperialism II achieved this.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Grumbold
SMAC style is not real life.

For most of history about the only influence rulers had over inventions was making their country attractive to live in, peaceful, prosperous and healthy. Occasionally they would be able to patronise voyages of discovery or new constructions but there isn't much they could do to foster the original intellectual processes.

In modern times discoveries have become far more definable because labs involving hundreds of staff and thousands of experiments are now possible. You can actively target the specific outcome you are looking for. Aiming for a new metallic alloy you are not going to find an advanced plastic or medical technique instead. Since SMAC is set in a high tech future I find its blundering around very strange except when related to the planetary life forms which is certainly a whole new field.

My ideal research approach is something like Imperialism II, including the espionage bonuses. The easiest way of stopping a runaway victory in Civ would be to avoid the Science lead snowballing. Imperialism II achieved this.

I like the SMAC system. Its not like, using the US for an example, the federal and state governments are simply funding 1 technology. The military does research, the FDA does research, the NSA does research etc... so in this sense perhaps during a republican administration more effort is put into "conquer" via increased military funding, but maybe more money is put towards "build" in a democratic administration. This doesnt even make mention coorporate research...

btw I liked the MOO2 system, just cause it forced you to be diplomatic. But thats prolly not good for civ.

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by Lemmy


But the leaders often do determine in what direction the research goes, during the space race to the moon, both Russia and America focused their research to space ships and everything and they knew what to expect, same goes with the atom bomb, the government knew what they would gain the a-bomb. Research is usually done with particular goals in mind, so you know some of things that you can get from them, maybe not everything. That is also an option, you can only see certain abilities you get when researching a tech, and the further you research the more you get to know about it. What you see can depend on the status of your civ
example:
Your civ is at war with another and you have to choose a new research project, you see "nuclear physics", and because you're at war you can only see that can build an atom bomb if you research this.
However if you were at peace, who would think about making a bomb, a new power plant is much more needed to support a growing population, so you only see that you can build a nuclear power plant if you research this tech.

I didn't play MoO, but from what i understand is that you can have multiple research projects and you know what you can gain from them, if that is true, than i'm for the MoO style of research.

WATERMELONS RULE!!!!!!!!....sorry :P

Perhaps, but not in older techs. Nobody said, "Let's research the Wheel" and a few decades later a wheel was born. Anyone who knows what a wheel is knows the basic concept and creating one would not take decades. And a lot of the techs were not researched by any government. Tell me what government chose to develop Communism or Electricity.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by JellyDonut


Perhaps, but not in older techs. Nobody said, "Let's research the Wheel" and a few decades later a wheel was born. Anyone who knows what a wheel is knows the basic concept and creating one would not take decades. And a lot of the techs were not researched by any government. Tell me what government chose to develop Communism or Electricity.

So, would you rather have technological break throughs as a random event?

A moo style research wouldn't work in civ, because the tech tree does not have the same structure, and the technologies are more eventful discoveries, not just a new metal (for example).

And blind research wouldn't work simply because there isn't enough variety in the tech tree for it to have any noticeable effect.

I think the civ style research is perfect for a civ game, as are the other systems for their respective style of game.

[Colon™]

Civ has advances that are pretty broad in scope and mostly weren’t the result of deliberate efforts by the leadership. (advances such as rocketry and space flight being exceptions) However the character of the country in question did influence in which fields progress would be made (eg Romans being excellent constructors) and IMO blind research does a better job in reflecting this than either the original civ or the moo models.

"And blind research wouldn't work simply because there isn't enough variety in the tech tree for it to have any noticeable effect."

Actually, civ’s tree contained as many techs as did SMAC’s and if anything, it was more varied (the civ2 advances were classified in 5 categories BTW) Besides, blind research was an option that could be switched off so featuring it in civ3 shouldn't give any problems.

[Lemmy]

Originally posted by JellyDonut

Perhaps, but not in older techs. Nobody said, "Let's research the Wheel" and a few decades later a wheel was born. Anyone who knows what a wheel is knows the basic concept and creating one would not take decades. And a lot of the techs were not researched by any government. Tell me what government chose to develop Communism or Electricity.

Well, nobody really knows how the wheel was invented, it could be chief that wanted a better way to carry resources around, and some tribal came up with the wheel.

But good point about Communism and Electricity.
Maybe the techs could be divided in two categories, those that government can research and those that can only be researched by citizens ( more or less random, depending on the state of your civ ), cos over the course of history, most weapons were researched by the government, but other more daily stuff is usually the work of entrepeneurs or independent scientists.

You could also look at the research in Civ like this :
Somewhere in your civ a new discovery is made by someone, let's say a Mr E discovers Electricity, he could never fully exploit this deiscovery on his own and contacts the government and ask if they want to fund his research. But before he does that, he tries to come up with practical uses for Electricity to convince the government.
And that is what you see when you have to select a new research goal, a potential discovery with their practical uses already known.

[Trifna]

I think that the closest to reality is that you can give general orientations, since you pratically never work on ONE thing, since you would lose the potential of scientists that aren't interested to work in this particular field but more in annother. The thing you can do is to give more funds to researchers of a field or annother. Like our governments which give priorities, but wouldn't be idiot enough to lose all these potential scientists that aren't specialized especifically in the general of researches demanded.

Secondly, there are some research that you can be more precise on. These are the ones that you can anticipate alot from the knowledge you already have. Like such projects as space projects, in which we put alot of money in many prototypes and tests, judging the ones that have more chances. Such as the atomic bomb also. Or such as stealth of planes or of the possibility to build faster computers, since we already found some ways to make faster computers and stealthier planes.

So, all this should depend on the tech and many types of techs should exist. Also, if you would put all your funds to ONE place, you would lose your scientists in some other fields while puting so much money elsewhere that even low-grades scientists would have totally paid researches, which implicts more losses.

This is reality. How to we implement a good model in Civ III? Well I guess that we could give general directions, give a certain % to each general field of researches for exemple. We could be more precise with some techs also. At which point? Well you could have a better % of chance of effectively get what you were aiming for, getting a certain % of discovery that becomes higher and higher with time and ressources invested, so no "will get tech in 3 years". Maybe that some could be as precise at in Civ I-II. Would there be maluses when puting an excessive amount of money for the researchers you have? Would the first 10-20% have a bonus? Would the 60% or 70% profit more than the 80th % and so on? Could be good... This is up to Firaxis. Hope you like my model. It's realistic. But gheez, can be hard to implement realistically and balanced.

Signed:

Trifna,
Realism purist perfectionist.

PS: Of course, some will be glad to be able to togle this option off for some different strategic playing :-P

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
In modern times discoveries have become far more definable because labs involving hundreds of staff and thousands of experiments are now possible. You can actively target the specific outcome you are looking for. Aiming for a new metallic alloy you are not going to find an advanced plastic or medical technique instead. Since SMAC is set in a high tech future I find its blundering around very strange except when related to the planetary life forms which is certainly a whole new field.

That's not exactly true. There are many levels of researches. Broadly speaking, basic research and applied research. Basic research is just a bunch of boffins locking themselves up in a lab and mess around. You can never tell what actually comes out of basic researches other than the general areas. Applied research is what you do after you have a new discovery or invention.

For example, nobody expected superconductivity. However, once it's found, scientists can start looking for applications.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
In modern times discoveries have become far more definable because labs involving hundreds of staff and thousands of experiments are now possible. You can actively target the specific outcome you are looking for. Aiming for a new metallic alloy you are not going to find an advanced plastic or medical technique instead. Since SMAC is set in a high tech future I find its blundering around very strange except when related to the planetary life forms which is certainly a whole new field.

That's not exactly true. There are many levels of researches. Broadly speaking, basic research and applied research. Basic research is just a bunch of boffins locking themselves up in a lab and mess around. You can never tell what actually comes out of basic researches other than the general areas. Applied research is what you do after you have a new discovery or invention.

For example, nobody expected superconductivity. However, once it's found, scientists can start looking for applications. Another, more recent example is the discovery of electron neutrinos changing into muon and tau neutrinos. That probably doesn't have any applications (yet), but posts a major problem for the Standard Model of Quantum Physics.