Should Techs Cost More?

[Jon Shafer]

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.

[Azeem]

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.

[dexters]

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).

[nbarclay]

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.

[Daz]

I voted they should cost more. I like long games.... And I also want more techs giving more units....

[Worthingtons]

I think they should all cost the same, it is elitist to think some should be worth more than others!!
Damn Capitalists.

[Harovan]

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.

[Willem]

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.

[mrmitchell]

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 ).

[TheArsenal]

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.

[PLATO]

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.

[Willem]

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%.

[PLATO]

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.

[mrmitchell]

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.

[pedrojedi]

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!