 |
View Poll Results: Should Techs Cost More?
|
 |
All techs should cost more
|
  
|
6 |
26.09% |
Later techs should cost more
|
  
|
2 |
8.70% |
Techs should cost the same
|
  
|
6 |
26.09% |
Techs should cost less
|
  
|
2 |
8.70% |
Only the banana knows
|
  
|
7 |
30.43% |
|
May 29, 2003, 23:14
|
#1
|
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
Local Time: 22:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
|
Should Techs Cost More?
Even with a medium-sized empire, by the Industrial Age you can research techs in under 10 turns pretty easily. Modern age by 1650 AD and the end of the game is probably pretty close afterwards. Should the techs (after Ancient Age, mainly) cost more? It seems as though by the time you get to Riflemen/Infantry/Tanks you end up with obsolete units in about 20 turns, and unless you're fighting constant world war, that's a whole lot of spacebar pushing.
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 00:10
|
#2
|
Prince
Local Time: 02:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 310
|
Or maybe there should be more techs. Technology nowadays in the real world is advancing quite quickly (though it doesn't mean that we're really getting any wiser  ).
The tech tree for Civ3 is far too small. It ought to be huge and expanded like in GalCiv.
__________________
"When we begin to regulate, there is naming,
but when there has been naming
we should also know when to stop.
Only by knowing when to stop can we avoid danger." - Lao-zi, the "Dao-de-jing"
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 01:42
|
#3
|
King
Local Time: 02:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,141
|
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; May 30, 2003 at 01:51.
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 05:00
|
#4
|
Emperor
Local Time: 20:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Huntsville, Alabama
Posts: 6,676
|
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.
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 05:05
|
#5
|
Prince
Local Time: 02:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Deaf forever
Posts: 599
|
I voted they should cost more. I like long games.... And I also want more techs giving more units....
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 07:17
|
#6
|
Prince
Local Time: 02:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pride Park,Derby
Posts: 393
|
I think they should all cost the same, it is elitist to think some should be worth more than others!!
Damn Capitalists.
__________________
Up The Millers
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 07:33
|
#7
|
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
Local Time: 03:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
|
I modded the game, increasing all tech rates (not tech costs!) by 50%, the minimal research time to 6 turns and the maximal to 60 turns and reducing all AI-to-AI trade rates (cut the excess over 100% in half, 150% becomes 125%), which also reduces the speed of tech whoring. This makes me enter the modern age in the late 1800's or early 1900's, and moves the end of the tech tree in the 2000's. Now, I think about increasing the cost of modern age techs and extending the turn span of the game from 540 to 600..700.
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 09:08
|
#8
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Now, I think about increasing the cost of modern age techs and extending the turn span of the game from 540 to 600..700.
|
Ouch! I increased my game to the full 1000 turns, and I've spent alot of time fiddling with the tech rate etc. and production costs in order to balance things out again. I've been at it since PTW came out, and I still don't have it quite right.
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 10:22
|
#9
|
King
Local Time: 20:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,394
|
The game is balanced as it is. I'd like to see as an option a "Post-Modern" age where Firaxis tries to predict the future  
However, for the reasons nbarclay mentioned, adding techs in the ancient, midieval, industrial would unbalance the troops vs. economics aspect (or something  ).
__________________
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 11:01
|
#10
|
Prince
Local Time: 19:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Sunny Southern California
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Azeem
The tech tree for Civ3 is far too small. It ought to be huge and expanded like in GalCiv.
|
Try the "Double Your Pleasure" mod. The tech tree is about twice the size.
__________________
"Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription is ... more cow bell!"
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 17:29
|
#11
|
Emperor
Local Time: 21:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Occupied South
Posts: 4,729
|
I am not so sure that buildings being completed about the same time that new techs come on line is realistic. With additional techs then a society would have to decide weather or not to build one or the other improvements granted by the techs. This seems more real world to me. I for one, don't have a problem with the current cost of techs and the speed at which they come. I think that nbarclay has an excellent point that mankind could easily have gained a 10% time increase in getting to the space age with better management.
To me it is a problem of not enough techs, not tech cost.
TheArsenal, I really enjoyed the double your pleasure mod. It creates interesting choices early.
__________________
Favorite Staff Quotes:
People are screeming for consistency, but it ain't gonna happen from me. -rah
God... I have to agree with Asher ;) -Ming - Asher gets it :b: -Ming
Troll on dope is like a moose on the loose - Grandpa Troll
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 17:38
|
#12
|
Emperor
Local Time: 19:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,755
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by PLATO1003
I think that nbarclay has an excellent point that mankind could easily have gained a 10% time increase in getting to the space age with better management.
|
It's probably more than that. The fall of the Roman Empiire probably set us back at least 1000 years. On a 4000 year time scale, that's 25%.
|
|
|
|
May 30, 2003, 18:17
|
#13
|
Emperor
Local Time: 21:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Occupied South
Posts: 4,729
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Willem
It's probably more than that. The fall of the Roman Empiire probably set us back at least 1000 years. On a 4000 year time scale, that's 25%.
|
When you take that into consideration plus a 10% increase due to heightened efficiency of management then you are looking at hitting the space age around 400-600A.D. If this is correct, then this would seem to say that tech cost is to high. Unless you assume that a "dark age" is inevitable and that this was taken into consideration in pricing the techs.
__________________
Favorite Staff Quotes:
People are screeming for consistency, but it ain't gonna happen from me. -rah
God... I have to agree with Asher ;) -Ming - Asher gets it :b: -Ming
Troll on dope is like a moose on the loose - Grandpa Troll
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2003, 09:45
|
#14
|
King
Local Time: 20:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,394
|
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.
__________________
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2003, 13:51
|
#15
|
Prince
Local Time: 23:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Porto Alegre, RS
Posts: 532
|
I agree Mr. Mitchell. The game can't show all the variables that led the Roman Empire to its fall.
I'd like more techs, I'd like more Units, I'd like more turns. I'm pretty much greedy, I think.
I WANT IT ALL!
Edit: In the land of the apples, Banana's the King!
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2003, 16:07
|
#16
|
Emperor
Local Time: 04:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
|
hi ,
some techs should definatly cost more
it would also be great to see certain techs that would cost more according to the civ that wants it , .....
and we should have an option in the editor to block certain or all research from certain or all civs , this would be great for scenario's and mods
have a nice day
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2003, 16:18
|
#17
|
King
Local Time: 02:39
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 1,141
|
Like I said, I think tech costs are fine. The problem with playing in higher difficulty levels is AI gets production bonses, they research faster than a normal game, and if you are trading techs, you also advance faster.
I think the best solution is for us to cross our fingers and hope Firaxis throw in a few new techs in Conquests.
|
|
|
|
May 31, 2003, 16:59
|
#18
|
King
Local Time: 20:39
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,394
|
__________________
meet the new boss, same as the old boss
|
|
|
|
Posting 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
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:39.
|
|