FIRAXIS please read! - Panzer problem solved! - Page 2

Gammaray fan · May 7, 2001, 00:07

Perhaps you could have a situation where a Great Artist can allow for the creation of special units, but this takes away from the strategy of the game. Practical sciences whether instituted through a slider bar or by selection from three checkboxes upon commencing research of a tech allows for this choice, thereby creating continuing STRATEGY throughout the game.
A major concern of many people is to counter militarists, but an even greater concern is to maximise the places in the game where the player can ACTIVELY choose and decide his/her strategy. The Tech tree was the greatest example of choice and was the greatest invention in CIV. Civ3 is a new game, and more choices are needed. (By the way SE from SMAC was an example of choice) - people always like choice!!!

Zealot · May 8, 2001, 00:57

It is really nice to see good ideas at Apolyton but, please don't forget, this could really increase micromanagement! Do you really want that? Hum... Well, I don't. But keep posting!

Gammaray fan · May 8, 2001, 20:05

Zealot,
I cannot see how selecting one box from three (low,normal,high practical science) every time you research a military tech is micromanagement!?!

Grumbold · May 9, 2001, 09:58

I remain a fan of the "minor tech" approach because it is more flexible. It simply adds a lot of extra dead ends into a tech tree which at the moment (Civ2 etc) is remarkably linear. Almost no technologies can be ignored in your advance up the tree. Lots of side techs will help balance it. Should you race from legionaries toward pikemen or take the time to pick up a tech that will give your legionaries +1 defence or +1 attack (no need for extra graphics)? The panzer tank could be represented by a choice to take a combination of minor techs which add +1 attack and +2 defence to the standard tank unit you produce for -1 movement and double cost to build.

The main advantages? Many different customisable additions rather than a single one. Firaxis don't have to decide what extra improvements the practical science will bring, you can choose yourself. It also bridges that gap between one unit type and its replacement 300 turns later. The improvements reflect a gradual increase in their effectiveness rather than an instant bonus at birth. It also gives less scientifically orientated nations a chance to keep pace. Their tanks may not be as good as their opponents, but because they have not followed every minor blind alley in the tech tree since 4000 BC at least they have tanks to face their opponents with, not chariots. Mod makers can make campaigns where many nations have similar basic troop types but their available minor tech upgrades allow them to behave a little differently (like almost any troops have done throughout history despite their basic similarities.) It doesn't help a single nation to field 4 different styles of tank simultaneously but I admit that is where I have to reluctantly draw the line between Civ and a wargame

Gammaray fan · May 9, 2001, 22:32

Grumbold,
I can see the advantages of your model. It allows a player to pick and choose bonuses to their units but their is one MAJOR drawback. Namely, it requires HEAPS of minor techs. You would essentially need 4 or more minor techs (assuming units start weak you would need two upgrades for attack and defence - weak to normal, normal to strong)for every military unit in the game. That adds up to about 80 or more minor techs! Although this might not be so bad for the player, it means the AI will have 80 or more techs to choose between! And additionally, how would you represent the different strengths of identical units on the map!? With the practical science model, strong, normal, or weak, would simply be represented by a different coloured circle next to the health bar. Perhaps red, yellow or green. Answers Grumbold!

down th' pub · May 9, 2001, 22:44

Wait, an idea is forming.

We could have, lets see, FOUR research areas and prioritize as you wanted.

Hang on, that sounds familiar.

(SMACing in head sounds - trying to shake thought loose)

[This message has been edited by down th' pub (edited May 09, 2001).]

Grumbold · May 10, 2001, 07:13

The different strengths of individual units would not be represented by different graphics otherwise you might as well just push for Civ to include 4x the number of units in the first place. The unit stats could be revealed when you hover the mouse over the unit (I wish this happened already, taking terrain and fort mods into account, I hate to have to do even easy mental math) or alternatively Firaxis could let it be a surprise. Attack a unit expecting an easy win and suddenly find the enemy has learned some new tricks!

In terms of the AI deciding whether to pick these minor advances, you have to weave that into whatever science model is chosen. I would prefer a model that makes it hard to push too far out of the pack (complacency leads to poor innovation whearas heavy competition, especially in wartime, leads to sudden progress. Look at IBM - got so fat and overconfident it was caught napping by Microsoft.) That would encourage world leaders to broaden their knowledge rather than push forward. Meanwhile tech diffusion should be making it easier for laggards to catch up. I assume there would be much the same decisions made in the "practical" model. People lagging behind would have to choose less "practical" in order to catch up on the theory.

Gammaray fan · May 10, 2001, 22:00

Grumbold,
What I meant about the AI was how would you program it to be able to intelligently decide whether to research +1 attack and +2 defence, or +2 attack and +1 defence, or +2 attack and +2 defence and so on...
With the practical science model, the AI only needs to choose whether he wants a strong unit (+1 attack +1 defence) a normal unit (0,0) or a weak one (-1,-1). This can be easily decided by making the AI compare how far behind the leading civ it is lagging in science, and calculating how many squares of each terrain surround its cities (radius) ie. lots of sea + not lagging behind in science = better ships.
With your model however, the AI has to pick not only between strong, weak and normal, but all the variations in between. Crucially, these variations do not always alter the time it takes to research (+1 attack, 0 defence) and (0 attack, +1 defence) are the same in terms of research time. Therefore the AI must do the impossible and THINK about which values would fit best into its STRATEGY (it can't have one because it can't think ahead). THIS is the AI problem I was referring to. Perhaps you can think of a way around it?