turns again

I wondered why changes in turn length are fixed to special years. Wouldn't it be more realistic to make it depend on advances.
e.g.: until the discovery of Philosophy: 10 years/turn
until Printing Press: 5 years/ turn
until Industrialization: 2 years/ turn
after Industrialization: 1 year/ turn

[CornMaster]

This would only work if the entire world changed when one civ got the advance or each civ would be on a different time line?!? And this would be bad!
But a pretty good idea.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
Administrator of the CornEmpire Forum
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

yes, of course I meant that the years/ turn change when the FIRST civ gets the required advance

[DarkCloud]

I would rather have it adjustable in the selection menu on how long the turns will take.

[UltraSonix]

What's wrong with the Civ2 turn/years system? Having lots-of-year-per-turn at the start (ie BC), then gradually slowing down to 1-year-per-turn in the 1900's. They should just extend the existing system to 4-turn-per-year in the 2000's.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Hm, thought I was clear about that.

What is the reason why in Civ2 earlier turns cover more years than later turns?
It's because we assume that in earlier times everything was going slower. Troops moved slower, advance was slower, communication between nations were slower etc.
In Civ we are writing an "alternate history". The reason why 1800AD in Civ is a turning point on turn length is because in OUR history that was about the time Industrialization started, 0AD is a turning point because in OUR history Jesus founded a dominant religion.
It wasn't the year 1800 itself that made a year "more valuable", it was industrialization.
If you think that at the end of the game it should be even 4 turns/ year, "Radio" and"Computer" could be other turning points.
until Radio: 1 year/ turn
until Computer: 1/2 year/ turn
after Computer: 1/4 year/ turn

[UltraSonix]

I see what you mean, but then:

quote: I meant that the years/ turn change when the FIRST civ gets the required advance

That means that for the other civs that hadn't got the advance, time would go more slowly, so to speak. Hence the turn/years ratio would still be unrealistic for those civs.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[MidKnight Lament]

I thought it was a pretty good idea, wernazuma. I haven't decided if I prefer it to the way it's done now, but your idea is definitely worth discussing.

- MKL

[Az]

this needs some large scale polishing off , but the Idea is there ! . I actually think that this should depend on the number of civs which have contact.

*bump*

i don't really think this topic is at the end of its capacities...

[Seeker]

I think a longer game would be better. Slow down ancient research and makes turns/years 1/1.

Do you know that, for example, it is impossible to reenact Julius Caesar in Gaul, or Alexander the Great? Alexanders Phalanx takes hundreds of years to travel its historical route!

[airdrik]

Idea: going with the idea of when you get a certain advance then turns=less years, you could have it so that civs with the advances get more turns than the rest of the civs (it skips the civs that haven't got that advance yet). This would make it even more needful that you keep up with and ahead of all other civs, in terms of advancement, because the further you are behind the other civs, the longer it will take you to catch up and the harder it will be to catch up. They could/should also decrease the number of years/turn so that it's more realistic.
[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited November 12, 2000).]

[Ralf]

I would like to see the total number of turnes changed from 500 to 500-800.

Other then that i tend to agree with with Ultrasonix. Why complicate things if it doesnt actually add that much to the exitement/suspence factor?

There is a tendency amongst many Civ-veterans in persistently trying to turn minor tried-and-tested solutions into ever more complicad untested ones.

Why?

Remember, there is things called softwate-bugs. A less effective way to combate that is by software-patches. A much more effective way for Firaxis is to only focus their attention to *important* things that adds to...

- the constant goal-oriented excitement/suspense factor.
- The feeling of achievement and the drive to replay.

Every suggestion should go through above filter, i think. Does this idea ADD something to above?

------------------------------------ edited:
I have read trough the thread once more, and perhaps i responded somewhat unreasonable. The turn-rate can change like in Civ-2 or like in Wernazuma´s suggestion. Its just a matter of taste, and i guess his suggestion is as good as any.

I just dont want to see Firaxis adopting the same approach that the original CTP-team did:

Changing virtually every tried-and-tested Civ-2 feature for the sake of changing it. This became a goal in itself.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited November 12, 2000).]