Any new ideas on the matter? Also how should the new game concept of "culture" impact your research?

I'm of the opinion that SMAC had one of the better methods, with research going towards a type of research, whether that be social advances, or military technology. Being a grad student, thats how research sort of gets done nowadays. While we don't really know where our research will lead us long term, we can decide who to fund, or "put our money where our mouth is." For funding theoretical sciences, like advanced physics, we build atom smashing labs; For more practical sciences such as engine technology or vaccine research. Or for social sciences, we fund liberal arts studies like economics. SMAC does a pretty good job of simulating those funding priorities.

quote: Originally posted by MrFun on 04-08-2001 03:18 PM Dont forget - in real history, one civilization's cultural achievements and benefits are not exclusive for all eternity. The discoveries and inventions spread to other civilizations. So, I believe some wonders should give positive benefits to ALL civilizations when one player builds them. This raises the strategic question of whether you want the benefit of a wonder badly enough that you will allow all other computer/human players benefit as well.

My question was in regards to research though. Effects of wonders wasn't my intent. I can forsee culture influencing research either positively or negatively.

With regards to exclusive benefits, thats the idea behind espionage and stealing technology from more advanced Civs. Also a civilizations culture defines its own society, not that of others. The idea is the Greeks had such great culture, thats why when Alexander invaded, once conquered, the cities easily incorporated Greek styles and society with their own particular society. Its why China was able to absorb the Mongolian hordes, and make them Chinese, not the foreign invaders they were.

The discovery of gunpowder and magnetism in China thousands of years before Europe did not effect European culture. Instead, it took espionage (or traders) to bring those ideas to Europe. But Chinese culture was one that fostered the technological development, a gov't bureacracy by merit (and some political favor) as gov't employees had to pass the civil service exam first, which meant academic study. With the Dark Ages, the culture of Europe was one of very little openness (fuedalism) and constant warfare. It took the Renaissance for Europe to begin significantly expanding on human knowledge again.

It would be interesting simulating how interaction with other cultures and minor tribes adds and energises new cultural avenues and vigour in a civ.

I see a classical culture as stimulating sociological research, that is for techs like trade,democracy and maybe economics(modelling the economics of the world), as well as philosophy and maybe The Scientific Method.

Culture could also mean a culture of millitary power, but that might make things to complicated having many different layers of culture.

How about high culture value civs being penalised for research in the millitary, like the civilised /millitaristic values did in civ2's leader profiles.
Or maybe the millitary could be restricted in expense of culture.. In history the Romans ,maybe correctly, feared becoming too peaceful and
non millitaristic lest their empire fall from millitary neglect and weakness. This Barbaric cultural theme in Rome affected its empire a lot I say, perhaps in fact making those outside the empire fear and hate them more. This millitary tendancy was shown in the Gladiatoral Colosseum Battles.
(Colosseums therefore could give negative culture if under despotism or millitary governments -these control and use propoganda which is bad for a culture)

Therefore I think Civ 3 should have cultural penalties for keeping wars going, and maybe losing more points when cities are captured. Things like
banning free speech and causing genocide or executing peaceful prostestors
in riots should give BIG cultural penalties.
This should also result in less scientific points, making a clear link with culture points and technology points.

I suppose a large cultural diversity could help research too, giving more
areas for different ideas and ways of doing things to occur.

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-08-2001 12:21 PM I'm of the opinion that SMAC had one of the better methods, with research going towards a type of research, whether that be social advances, or military technology. Being a grad student, thats how research sort of gets done nowadays. While we don't really know where our research will lead us long term, we can decide who to fund, or "put our money where our mouth is." For funding theoretical sciences, like advanced physics, we build atom smashing labs; For more practical sciences such as engine technology or vaccine research. Or for social sciences, we fund liberal arts studies like economics. SMAC does a pretty good job of simulating those funding priorities.

Serapis, I'm intriqued by the proposal. I confess, I've never played SMAC. Couldn't afford it. I like the sound of funding areas of research rather than specific advances. Sounds very realistic. After all, radar was discovered while researching radio waves for a completely different purpose.