Something for Civ-3 as well perhaps? Any comments?

If you constantly fight wars, you will be able to build legions before your neighbors because you will use your technology to fight. While, an expansionist near the ocean will get ships faster and have colonies overseas.

Cities = one general purpose research queue
Military Labs = one military tech only research queue
Universities = one general purpose research queue
Civilian Hospitals = one health? related research queue
...

If that produces too many queues to make the specificity meaningful (who cares if you have 5 hospitals and 15 mil labs when practically speaking you only have enough beakers to get 4 labs going at a reasonable pace), perhaps you would need multiple centres to get a single queue (before that they just help produce beakers).

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 01-09-2001 06:16 PM Any comments? "It would have been nice to have the option to research multiple technologies, so you could have the choice of concentrating all of your research on one goal (thus achieving it faster), or spreading the wealth a bit to get more upgrades at once."

Linear towards an important step to the discovery OR wasting precious time in spread-outs aim at many different areas.

Looking at history;
How many nations were engaged in the race to manufacture the "FIRST" trans-atlantic sail boat while at the same time gathering evidence of Jupiter's moons?

Reality is that discoveries happen to emerge through competition, not hiding it from the rest of a planet.
If the America-Russia race to the moon hadn't occured then WE wouldn't have communication satellites today.

Research has to be focused on a single comprehensive goal, if need be, but also must lend itself free towards any "emergency" alternatives BY choice.

This is one clear-cut case where "realism" takes a back seat to "fun".

There was nothing more addictive and "fun" in the first Civilization games than making that tough decision on what technology to pursue next. That was where the fun was: you had to CHOOSE carefully between a variety of interesting options.

That's what kept strategists thinking and planning and eagerly awaiting that next turn on into the wee hours of the night.

The interesting choices you make are part of what makes a game like this addictive. But the choices are straightforward, often, and distinct enough to be intriguing for planners. Make it so their's too much planning and strategy involved all at one time (i.e. you can choose a bunch of technologies at once...*ugh*) and you lose alot of the simplicity, the beauty, and the basic enjoyment of the game.

I promise you, what keeps people "hooked" on strategic computer games is simple, interesting choices with direct consequences.

This is perhaps the dullest idea since the "managing your supply lines" one. It does nothing to improve the overall enjoyment of the game.

But, this raises an interesting question: Will it be strategically better to research multiple techs at once? After all if you have your research spread out between 10 different techs then you won't gain any techs for 10 times as long, after which you gain 10 techs and wait 10 times as long for the next 10. As opposed to one at a time, by the time the other guy gets his next ten you have already had the first nine, and got the tenth at the same time as he got all ten, so you are really ahead because you've had all those other techs for longer than him.

Better just not to have the strategy available in the first place.

Such a change would entail a more complex model of the way knowledge and technology are handled by the game. But that addition of complexity would add no fun or intrigue. In fact, it might take away fun because instead of making a simple, interesting choice between a few options with direct conesquences you are faced with a more complex, confusing choice wherein the consequences aren't that immediately apparent at all.

Over-complexity can turn Civ into more of a "chore" than a game.

Think of chess. How simple is chess to learn? Extremely. How realistically does chess model actual mililtary strategy? It's based on that notion, but really only scratches the surface.

But how beautiful is chess? How addictive? How intriguing are the choices you make? Would you ever wish to add MORE complexity to the game of chess? If so, what could you possibly add?

It hosts lot of ideas, about parallel tech research, too.

Me too often forget to check it, so I "discover" again the same solution so many smart apolytoner suggested months or years ago

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet on 01-10-2001 01:41 PM TOTALLY opposed to this.

I have one objection that i didnt really think of, before i posted this quote. I shall probably never use this option, even if they decides to implement it, because...

Alternative A:

If I choose to allocate 33% lightbulbes equally to 3 different techs (adding up to roughly 100%), it means 3 times as long waiting time before I get access to any of these 3 chosen techs.

Alternative B:

If I instead choose to allocate 100% to tech 1, it means i get access to that specific tech, after only 1/3 of above waiting-time. If I then continue to allocate 100% to tech 2, it means that i get access to that specific tech after only 2/3 of above waiting-time.

It could be interesting though if civ's had different research modifiers depending on their government and peace status i.e. Despots whould have a generally poor scientific output but it would perform best when used to research warlike advances, particularly when fighting a war. To make this work the techs would need to be broken down into their different components. I.e. you would research the basic mathematics advance first, then one possible offshoot would be to design catapults. The warlike could stop to research this new unit while the more peaceloving could choose to discover aqueducts and gamble on not being attacked.

IMO the tech-tree system is fun, the interbranching and prerequisites make for great strategy, and the "decision point" when you pick a tech that you can't change for 10 turns is one of the things that can make you squirm.

You can have one catagory for say
-weapons\unit.
-Anthor for buildings
-anthor for tile improvements
-maybe wonders
-city improvments.

what ever you needed at the time you can crank it up to max as if you could only research one at a time or do two or three catagories and buile it equally.

Like someone said earlier alot of tech research was discovered at the same time. Civ 3 should reflect this other wise its just the same old as Civ 1 and Civ 2.

I have made a post a while ago about this and all i got was complaints about my idea. its nice to know that some of you do agree with me.

and for the perosn who told me to keep it KISS (keep it simple stupid) why play a game like civ2 or civ3 since its a complicated game.

While admittedly not a "bad" system, it pales in comparison to the simple, perfect, streamlined fun of technology advancement in Civ.

No need to add layers of complexity to what is already one of the most addictive and entertaining aspects of the original.

If they want to add some features, fine, but let's not complicate the ones which are already so inherently beautiful and need no work.

Time ago, when discussion about these emerged, I've found very interesting the ideas 24) Prerequisite points and 10) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS.

I'm not sure about the different ways proposed to organize the research, but I'm more liking suggestion 5) TECHNOLOGICAL "FIELDS" CONTAINING MINOR TECHS and 4) RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA'.

I'm in favour of a half-blind research (search in a defined field, not exactly picking on a tech), because stop a human players to chose only a sure, fastest path to a wanted tech, hundred of years early any human can just imagine it!

Prerequisite points based tech tree can be built mainly "hidden" to novice player, it simply let every civ to have a slighty different tech path, without compromising the whole result, and "great scientist" concept would assure a more realistic science enhancement, specially on early age (think Archimede, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci), while in modern time a single scientist is usually backed up from a team of good researchers that often could gain similar result, just with longer research time.

Research priority slider bar with inertia is a "finesse", I can live without if it result too much hassle for playability.

For sure, I don't think that CIV 2 easy way to search tech is so good to keep it as is

It suffers slightly IMO from the same inflexibility as Civ because rich nations would always out-perform poorer ones in research. Unlike Civ this is capped slightly by the fact that the mega-rich can not do more than double-cost research on 3 techs. Poor nations can do 0 cost research of a tech already discovered by someone else and get it eventually, too. 0 cost research with an active spy was as fast as the original paid research so it stops the weaker states falling so far behind they get into the pikeman vs tank situation (although they may not be able to afford a large army, of course.)

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet on 01-12-2001 11:57 AM Christ, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Personally, i feel somewhat unsure/ambivalent about the idea. I want to be able to lead-guide exactly in wich order these strategic tech-advance choices should be made (through the AI text-files) on behalf of the AI-civs, thus saving the AI from its own stupid self - and, by the way: in as many overal strategic/logistic areas of the game as possible.

Parallell percentage-allocated tech-advances tends to complicates things. Also, is there any actual benefit in using parallell research (check my previous, second post).

On the other hand: As the reviewer is one example of - many fans would perhaps hack down on the lack of added sophistication in the tech-advance area.

quote: ... is there any actual benefit in using parallell research (check my previous, second post) (?).

Flexibility is the answer. Please follow my explanation:

CIV 2 like - single queue
You are at peace, so begin to search for a Build (SMAC field are used here for example) research. Nine turn of research are required.

After 5 turn you suddendly meet a powerful Civ, that menace you with a more advanced weapon.

You must "keep the border" for another 4 turn, then switch to military and, after 13 turn you have the needed tech... if you aren't already crushed and buried
OR you must switch research to military, loosing 4 turns flat of research in "Build", and after nine turn you gain the needed military tech

CIV 3 proposed - multiple queue

You are at peace, so begin to search for
33% Build (SMAC field are used here for example) research.
33% Explore
33% Military

Now 3*9 = twentyseven turn of research are required to gain everyone of the mentioned advance.

After 5 turn you suddendly meet a powerful Civ, that menace you with a more advanced weapon.

You can divert 100% of reserch bulb to military, freezing the other two research field.

You have already researched 5/27 of military advance, so switching full steam you'll get it in 7 turn (maybe 8, it depends from rounding).

You'll have your "bandaid" in place one-two turns earlier, and you'll save the research on the other fields for the next peaceful time.

Disclaimer: I'm almost sleeping, so if I mess up the math please tell me gently

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 01-13-2001 08:09 PM You'll have your "bandaid" in place one-two turns earlier, and you'll save the research on the other fields for the next peaceful time.

You got me on this one! OK, lets go for "parallell research" then - but, still only as an option to choose. They can make it the default option, that s OK.