Debate on the rules

[AdamTG02]

Blind research is part of the standard rules. Not a dramatic change because it isn't a change.

[Tactical Marine]

Wait I thought I was voting to turn blind reashearch off... That way we'd be able to pick what techs we want...?

[Method]

Originally posted by Tactical Marine
I voted for...blind reasearch...

nope!

[AdamTG02]

It's confusing. I thought a vote for Blind Research meant to leave that box checked (as it is by default). I can see where you're coming from, though.

I like blind research because it seems more realistic (do nations choose what to discover in real life?) and it adds an element of chance. Also, it seems like Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer would be a lot easier to decide in polls than to list every single potential advance.

YMMV, of course.

[Tactical Marine]

Well whatever, It doesnt really matter to me as I'm not into the whole science thing anyhow. :roll:

[Method]

with blind research on, there would be a lot less chance for people to vote. sure its more realistic, but if we're at war, setting it to conquer might not necessarily get us what we want. say superconductor and superstring theory are available. obviously we want to be able to pick superstring to get chaos, but setting it to conquer might get us superconductor, or even something we don't want at all, like advanced military algorithms!

[Maniac]

I don't agree with the argument that blind research is more realistic. Surely if you invest cash in material science you are more likely to discover Plasma Steel than eg Nonlinear Mathematics. In a history game like civ2 I would agree blind research is more realistic, but SMAC is sci-fi where corporations/ the state know exactly what their research goals are.

[Juliennew]

I will remake the poll with the Yes and No option.
Can someone post the exact vocabulary of the rules in the english version as we will make sure everyone understand for what he votes.

I voted for blind research too but Maniac has a very good point saying it will reduce possibilites of the democratic game and the fun of the game. There will only be a debate on which direction to focus and it isn't interesting at all. And the science advisor would be useless.

[Method]

the rules are:

Higher Goal: Allow transcendance victory
Total War: Allow conquest
Peace in our Time: Allow diplomatic victory
Mine, All Mine: Allow economic victory
Once for all: Allow cooperative victory
Do or Die: Dont restart eliminated players
Look First: Flexible starting locations
Tech Stagnation: Slower research rate
Spoils of War: steal tech when conquer base.
Blind Research: Cannot set precise reseach goals
Intense Rivalry: Oppoents more aggressive
No unity survey: World map not visible
No unity scattering: Unity pods only at landing site
Bell Curve: No random events
Time Warp: accelerated start
Iron Man: Save/restore restricted to exit.
Randomise faction leader personalities
Randomise faction social agendas.

[gopher]

Definitly Blind Research. It will make the voting for new tech SO much more interesting.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by gopher
Definitly Blind Research. It will make the voting for new tech SO much more interesting.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=58132

vote in this poll instead!

[Crisler]

Originally posted by Epistax
I agree. A tech for conquering a base?
If we threw a rock at a flying saucer and it crashed, you think we could build more? pft

True we could not build the craft, but we would gain some kind of technology from a study of it's wreckage. That is the theory behind gaining tech when you take a base. A study of their data systems or devices at the base reveal enough information to allow a tech to be discovered quickly.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

[DeathByTheSword]

BUt what about the D of science? we do not need him anymore I agree it is cooler to have blind research but for demo game sake we 'need' a D of science