Tweet
Arabia,
Now I see where you're coming from.
"But the minor tech one is better because it seems unlikely that every building or unit that you build will be special. I think that only with certain techs it should be possible."
Fair enough. this could be catered for in the 'slider bar' model, by fixing the practical science at 50% of the total science - (eg. if I had 20% luxuries, I'd have 80% total science, so there would be 40%practical science and 40%science)
This way, practical science level only plays a role in techs which yield military units.
BOTH MODELS ARE VERY SIMILAR. the only DIFFERENCE is that (assuming the bar is fixed for non unit techs as discussed above)...
The MINOR TECH model is more basic (yes strong unit or no), and will only apply to a handful of units which are deemed by FIRAXIS to be worthy of stronger versions. This I believe is the flaw. Every player, NOT FIRAXIS, should decide depending on each game circumstance, whether there should be a stronger version of a trireme, or archer etc. Just because in Earth history, the Germans found it beneficial to have a stronger tank (Panzer) doesn't mean that a civ player would.
EXAMPLE: Russians have small forest empire. No access to iron. They are about to be attacked by Germans, who have iron and therefore knights. THeir best defence therefore, is not knights (because they can't build them) but tougher archers. Using the minor tech model, they may not be able to because FIRAXIS looks at history at doesn't find that this situation every arose. If it did the history books may be filled with tales of the glorious Russian super archers, but they are not because this did not happen in real history. In civ history is made! Players will undoutably not make the same history as in the real world, and thus every game should see different civs specialise in different units - they should not be arbitrarily decided. THIS RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF THE PLAYER TO CREATE THEIR OWN HISTORY.
You say, "it is unlikely that every unit you build will be special". YOu are certainly right. With the 'slider bar model' a player that tries to make super units of everything will most likely be wiped out by a nuke while he's still got knights. You are right in saying only a few units that each civ built were superior in strength in the whole of history. However, the question of 'which ones were superior Panzer, ROman legion etc.' should not be decided by FIRAXIS through arbitrarily included minor techs, but should be up to the player to decide for each game of civ is different, and most importantly, DIFFERENT FROM HISTORY.
Now I see where you're coming from.
"But the minor tech one is better because it seems unlikely that every building or unit that you build will be special. I think that only with certain techs it should be possible."
Fair enough. this could be catered for in the 'slider bar' model, by fixing the practical science at 50% of the total science - (eg. if I had 20% luxuries, I'd have 80% total science, so there would be 40%practical science and 40%science)
This way, practical science level only plays a role in techs which yield military units.
BOTH MODELS ARE VERY SIMILAR. the only DIFFERENCE is that (assuming the bar is fixed for non unit techs as discussed above)...
The MINOR TECH model is more basic (yes strong unit or no), and will only apply to a handful of units which are deemed by FIRAXIS to be worthy of stronger versions. This I believe is the flaw. Every player, NOT FIRAXIS, should decide depending on each game circumstance, whether there should be a stronger version of a trireme, or archer etc. Just because in Earth history, the Germans found it beneficial to have a stronger tank (Panzer) doesn't mean that a civ player would.
EXAMPLE: Russians have small forest empire. No access to iron. They are about to be attacked by Germans, who have iron and therefore knights. THeir best defence therefore, is not knights (because they can't build them) but tougher archers. Using the minor tech model, they may not be able to because FIRAXIS looks at history at doesn't find that this situation every arose. If it did the history books may be filled with tales of the glorious Russian super archers, but they are not because this did not happen in real history. In civ history is made! Players will undoutably not make the same history as in the real world, and thus every game should see different civs specialise in different units - they should not be arbitrarily decided. THIS RESTRICTS THE FREEDOM OF THE PLAYER TO CREATE THEIR OWN HISTORY.
You say, "it is unlikely that every unit you build will be special". YOu are certainly right. With the 'slider bar model' a player that tries to make super units of everything will most likely be wiped out by a nuke while he's still got knights. You are right in saying only a few units that each civ built were superior in strength in the whole of history. However, the question of 'which ones were superior Panzer, ROman legion etc.' should not be decided by FIRAXIS through arbitrarily included minor techs, but should be up to the player to decide for each game of civ is different, and most importantly, DIFFERENT FROM HISTORY.
Comment