Civ...4 ... just a thought...

[Rakki]

the discussion on ancient era warfare has brought along another line of thought.... some people might think this is stupid, overcomplicated or whatever... but anyway...


Being able to acquire the technology does not mean you can actually do anything with it. For example, while the Babylonians may be able to steal advanced flight from me, why the hell should they suddenly be able to build bombers when they are still researching conscription (rifleman) ?

There should then be a shift of emphasis from technology -> city improvements. That is, a model similiar to RTS games where the infrastructure you have determines what you can build next.

If you don't have the infrastructure in place, even if you can build a unit you can't support it. This has of course been removed from civ3 where units are supported from the central treasury, but if a civ is still researching say, gunpowder, then it managed to steal advanced flight... why would it be able to suddenly build helicopters when it doesn't even have the necessary factory or whatever to build it ?


bit pressed for time... and this will probably conflict with people who think the need to research all technology in an era to move on to the next era... but still, just off the top of my head...

1. American indians had guns and rifles, but they were acquired through trade and there was no standardization or ability to manufacture the things themselves - and they were crushed by soldiers equipped with mass produced weapons who had little worry about conserving ammo.

2. Russia in WW1 had crap infrastructure and as a result it's massive armies were underequipped and had their asses kicked every time.

3. Japan simply didn't have the infrastructure to build the massive aircraft carriers, tanks and guns to counter the firepower the Americans were throwing at them.

4. Sure every high school student understands how nuclear weapons work - the problem is getting your hands on the raw materials as well as having the equipment to process the whole lot.


This is obviously slanted towards the modern era where the technology gap is greater. But things like shipyards, harbours, airports etc are more critical.. they make things easier to build and support the industry that can build those things....

[Lorizael]

Actually the way I look at it when you aquire a technology it has finally been spread abroud throughout your civilization. This means most people know what it is, many scientists know how it works, and the infrastructure for it is in place.

And anway, I don't want a shift towards RTS. I think Civ III is better TBS, but let's not start that debate.

The fact the units require gold to maintain them in fact means that somewhere they are being supplied guns that need money to be made.

Units also require strategic resources to build so in a sense you do need to have the right materials. And shields represent raw materials which are increased by things like factories and MFG plants.

I don't think Civ III needs anything in that area, it's already been vastly improved.

[Jaguar]

wait for civ 3 to come out first

[FrostyBoy]

I thought I told people not to bring up civ4?


anyway, when it does come, people will be calling it CIV

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Sn00py
I thought I told people not to bring up civ4?

I guess you're losing control Sn00py!

Originally posted by Sn00py
anyway, when it does come, people will be calling it CIV

My thought exactly!

[Skanky Burns]

Actually, id support this idea of infrastructure and technology determining what can be built. Within limits, of course. But ill wait and see how Civ 3 handles this sort of issue first, before starting a Civ 4 wishlist