50 years to build a warrior and other timescale issues

[The diplomat]

As we all know from playing civ games, there are several weird timescale problems. Warriors taking 50 years to build, a ship taking 40 years to cross the atlantic but a tank crossing america by rail instantaneously etc...

1) Are these serious issues that should be corrected in any future civ4?

2) If they do represent serious issues, how should they be fixed?

To answer the first question, I don't think that they are fundamental flaws but I do think that fixing them would bring the game that much closer to perfection.

To answer the second question, I think there are some obvious solutions:
-eliminate infinite movement with railroads.
-have units always be built in 1 turn, using gold instead of shields.
-allow cities to build more than one unit in a single turn.
-have build cost dependant on timescale so that in the early game when 1 turn = 20 years, more units can be built in a single turn than in the later game when 1 turn = 1 year.

These last 3 points would not just solve the timescale problems but IMO, would also improve gameplay. The player will spend less time waiting for units to be built or for units just to reach the enemy. If in the time it took previously just to get a group of units to the enemy, the player could now actually have fought several battles, then I think these changes would significantly improve gameplay.

I think this last point is the best argument in favor of such changes.

[DrSpike]

Re: 50 years to build a warrior and other timescale issues

Originally posted by The diplomat
As we all know from playing civ games, there are several weird timescale problems. Warriors taking 50 years to build, a ship taking 40 years to cross the atlantic but a tank crossing america by rail instantaneously etc...

1) Are these serious issues that should be corrected in any future civ4?

2) If they do represent serious issues, how should they be fixed?

1) No, it's a game.
2) They shouldn't, it's a game.

Ultimately all civ is an abstraction........if you makes you feel better think of the warrior as representing many warriors. But you can't make it perfectly consistent with reality, because it isn't reality, it's a game, an abstract implementation of the true decisions facing a burgeoning civ.

[The diplomat]

Re: Re: 50 years to build a warrior and other timescale issues

Originally posted by DrSpike
Ultimately all civ is an abstraction........if you makes you feel better think of the warrior as representing many warriors. But you can't make it perfectly consistent with reality, because it isn't reality, it's a game, an abstract implementation of the true decisions facing a burgeoning civ.

I realize that it is just a game. But don't you think that reducing to the time it takes to build units, will improve gameplay by reducing the waiting time between building a unit and actually fighting a battle with the unit?

[DrSpike]

Well the turn structure (and years per turn) is calibrated so that the average player is around the expected level of development as the game progresses. If you reduce the building costs of units you can make the early game quicker.......this is essentially what playing MP with 2x production does. I have no real problem with speeding things up, but the progression as it stands is a neat one IMO. You start off slowly building, and as you have more and more productive power (and things get more interesting) you get more turns for each fixed year period.

Tbh it doesn't matter........SMAC has turn 1, turn 2 etc. But Civ players usually like the progress in their game in some sense to follow the progress of civilization itself, regardless of the abstractions that are necessary to the game.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Well the turn structure (and years per turn) is calibrated so that the average player is around the expected level of development as the game progresses. If you reduce the building costs of units you can make the early game quicker.......this is essentially what playing MP with 2x production does. I have no real problem with speeding things up, but the progression as it stands is a neat one IMO. You start off slowly building, and as you have more and more productive power (and things get more interesting) you get more turns for each fixed year period.

First, it seems to me that the level of development is a matter of tech rate more than production speed. Making units build in 1 turn will not affect the sense of progress, it will simply give the player more time to use the unit before it becomes obsolete. The tech rate should stay the same, so that the player gets that level of development that makes sense.

I mentionned that a city should be able to build more than 1 unit at the same time. At the beginning of the game, say a city builds 1 unit per turn, then later as the city's development increases, it is able to build 3 units per turn, I think that sense of productive power will still be present.

[DrSpike]

Hehe, you can't increase productive power without speeding up tech. More production, more settlers, more cities, faster tech.

[Dauphin]

Timescale 'reality' issues really aren't worth worrying about compared to gameplay issues.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by The diplomat


First, it seems to me that the level of development is a matter of tech rate more than production speed. Making units build in 1 turn will not affect the sense of progress, it will simply give the player more time to use the unit before it becomes obsolete. The tech rate should stay the same, so that the player gets that level of development that makes sense.

That argument doesn't sit with me.

There is a lag between discovering a tech that allows you to build a unit, building it and then using it, sure. But that lag is not really an issue as, although a unit may be technologically obsolete when you discover a new technology, it is not actively obsolete until new units come off the production line.

All that rushing production does is shift both ends of the same lag effect. The total number of turns that a unit is not obsolete does not change.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Hehe, you can't increase productive power without speeding up tech. More production, more settlers, more cities, faster tech.

I am only talking about speeding up production of military units! I don't see how that would speed up tech discovery. Settlers and city improvements wouls still be built the regular way.

[DrSpike]

Well I don't think you can speed up production of certain things. Don't you think it would be better to argue for a reduction in shield cost for military units?

That would at least be an argument, albeit not a good one IMO. The unit costs are chosen to balance expansion, improvement and the military. Unless you have a very specific gripe I'd say it would be a bad idea to play with a delicate balance for the sake of timescale (or even the argument about obselete units) worries.

[Trifna]

Galactic Civilizations really says 1turn=1month
GalCiv always being particularly coherent in its rules and inner working, I think we should look at their model... I didn't really see incoherencies.

Spike: It's not because it's a game that if we can make it more coherent, without causing problems to gameplay, that it shouldn't be fixed!

[DrSpike]

Trifna we always have this argument. I am all for the addition of stuff that improves gameplay, but more often than not stuff that is included because of it's realism screws up the game. Just because something is 'realistic' does not mean there is *necessarily* a good way to implement it into the game. There *may* be, but the fact that the feature is realistic does not (as you so often say) guarantee a feature with good gameplay even if it is implemented in a good way.

And as I said above, it is far easier in Galciv/SMAC terms, because with civ everything has to be calibrated to in some sense model actual civilisation. Noone is going to complain that they researched advanced nanotechnic surgery 4 in 2145 instead of 2245.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by DrSpike
And as I said above, it is far easier in Galciv/SMAC terms, because with civ everything has to be calibrated to in some sense model actual civilisation. Noone is going to complain that they researched advanced nanotechnic surgery 4 in 2145 instead of 2245.

Well even in civ, you still get players who discover industrialization in 1200 AD!

[DrSpike]

Well in my recent early landing game I'm going to launch about then (no huts or start techs either).

So yeah, sometimes it screws up, but the calibration can only be done for the average player.

[Trifna]

Then some solutions have to be found that are compatible with the whole thing. Maybe intermediary techs for exemple. Like one tech composed of 2 minor and the real thing after, each one with advantages. It's easier to balance and not having huge differences between two players just cuz of one tech then.

If we succeed into making it more realist (not more detailed, i said more REALIST) without crashing the gameplay, then it's gonna be better since immersion is a great part of Civ for many many players.