has anyone ever mentioned this?

[fluxcapacitor]

I was thinking, it would be cool if you could take surplus cash and contribute it towards speeding up your current research. Especially in times of war, when you've got to have that one unit or whatever. What do you guys think?

[Gramphos]

It sounds quite useful, and I've not read it before.

[ixnay]

Yes, I've never heard this idea either. It sounds good to me.

[SerapisIV]

Well, you can already do this in a sense. Crank up your research and lower your tax rate into negative and you are basically buying research. Besides look at the nuclear fusion, gov't around the world have been dumping money into it for decades and we're still no where close to figuring it out. It's not a very realistic option, even in an abstracted game world like Civ.

[Leonidas]

It sounds good in theory, but throughout WWII the Germans tried desperately to come up with a super weapon that would win the war for them (and they had dozens of prototypes to show for it), but nothing really concrete was developed (the V1s and V2s were really just terror weapons and could not change the balance of the war).

And consider the US investment in Stars Wars. Again, nothing really concrete came of it.

And throughout history, consider the huge gaps in time it took between major inventions and conceptions of the universe. . .

[Bleyn]

I would agree that while it sounds like a good idea in theory, but isn't really a good idea in practice.

A better example than either WW2 Germany or StarWars is fusion research. Physicists have been trying to make a stable, controllable fusion power reactor for over 50 years now. They put quite probably billions of dollars into it by now, and they still have yet to achieve the goal.

Money just can't rush scientific research. If it could, just think of all the telethons we wouldn't have to put up with any more.

BTW, Hilter's weapons research isn't exactly the best example of how to do research. He seemed to think that sending all his scientists to the Russian front for a year or so to get shot at by the commies would be good.

Seriously. I think it was early or mid 1940. He felt the war would be over in less then a year, so he had many military research projects that would not produce results in that time cancelled. Most of the researchers ended up getting shipped off to the Russian front as infantry grunts. In '42, when he realized he'd screwed up and ordered those projects restored, many of those men were dead, and it took sometimes well into '43 for the projects to get going again. Had he not done that, he might have at least had a deployable jet fighter by late '42 or early '43 instead of 1945. This alone would have changed the face of war on both fronts because he was sharing his research with the Japanese.

[Earwicker]

Well you could spend that surplus cash to help rush-build libraries and univ's (assuming there are cities in which to build them).

[Leonidas]

Bleyn: You're probably right that WWII wasn't the best example to use. But I just tried to show that the Germans tried "rushing" their research during the war (as many Civers would try to do in the game) and despite the attention and money devoted to it, the Germans did not come up with anything that did turn the course of the war in their favour. . .

Real life shows, that in general a person can't "rush" research - it's the product of many years and ideas that have gone before it. . .

That's not to say you can't develop a better toaster within six months; but fusion power might take a little longer. . .

[tniem]

It would seem that this is not a very good idea in the Civ way of doing science.

How can you rush an idea like Flight? Or the wheel?

You could take research into the wheel and spend money for practical purposes like a chariot or a frisbee but the actual concept? I don't think so. So no, I would not like to see this implemented and it would be nice for all rush buying, i.e. buying city improvements to be done away with.

[GaryGuanine]

World War II was not the best example to use because the United States tried desperately to find a super weapon that would end the war for them, and they did! While I agree with the idea that modern governments should be able to buy science, I feel it may be anachronistic, and already sorta implemented as described by Serapis.

Gary

[Guest]

If it were possible to spend money on developing new ideas(which I feel it is), using a "Think Tank", then by all means we should have to put together such a group and give them a budget that would allow for research materials and a salary for its' members. If more money were allocated, it could broaden it's membership and include a wider scope of research. This all goes to the idea of "research"; what I mean is that you are researching a very general idea as opposed to a very specific one like say, gunpowder. Once you have a specific idea that has been brought forth by a "Think Tank" and that idea is seen as viable by most(not just the "Think Tank", then money can be spent on "Development" of that idea. Some people like to combine "Research" & "Development" into one idea, while one follows the other, they are in fact seperate entities. For instance, one may "develop" many different products or useful items from a single idea. The research of Nuclear reactions has provided us with weapons, energy sources, even modern medical uses.

So yes, I think we should be able to spend money on "Research", but then seperate money should be spent on "Development" of individual items that are given rise by the specific "Research." Maybe we should have in a Civ game an improvement called a "Think Tank" and a budget for it, and a seperate improvement called, oh I don't know(for the lack of a better idea of a name), "The Product Developer", that would put forth new items/units available for the civ to build/use.

I'm not an English major, I hope most can understand my main points

[Leonidas]

Hi Gary: My example in WWII referred to the Germans, not the Americans. Although a great deal of innovation was displayed by all sides (better tanks, planes, etc), only one nation (the US) developed the Atomic Bomb.

So rushing research only really paid off for the Americans. . . But even then, WWII, for all practical purposes, was over by the time it was dropped in August 1945. . .