New Idea

[SK138]

I don't know if this is possible to do or not in the editor but I think science rate should go up when you're at war. In just about every war, epecially the US civil war, technology increased very quickly. Anyone agree or know a way this could be done?

[Ming]

While I do agree with your observation, I think a lot of the "perfectionists" would go crazy about this one.

HA HA HA HA HA....

[Maquiladora]

I dont agree. Didnt only military science improve in wartime? And i dont think going to war needs any more incentives in gameplay terms.

[SK138]

Military Science improved mostly, but because of that, many new ideas came that helped make other everyday items. Too bad I can't think of any examples right now, but someone should know some.

[Wittlich]

If being in a war increases your science/research output, then war would be good and peace bad. There would be no incentive in a peaceful civilization...except having "happy" citizens. Even as it stands right now, when you're at war you can keep your citizens happy while at war by increasing luxury tax and juggling some balls (entertainers)...so it is a "game balancing" situation.

[alva]

Originally posted by SK138
Military Science improved mostly, but because of that, many new ideas came that helped make other everyday items. Too bad I can't think of any examples right now, but someone should know some.

jet engines

the start of commercial flight

the idea is good btw, but there should be a balancing negative (except for war weariness)

- slower growth
- income penalties
- higher corruption
are some possibilities
(war should be a bad thing IMO)

[asleepathewheel]

And of course in the late game, this could evolve:


warfare->v-2 rockets->Apollo->tang

of course, tang=transcendence and you win the game.

[Powerslave]

In MP games you would try find a partner which you could agree to be at war with to increase the tech rate.

[Ming]

In a MP game, it won't be a matter of finding a "partner"... just a matter of finding somebody else to attack

[jkelly]

War tech boost

I think that, in terms of CivIII abstractions, the "tech boost" from certain recent "real life" war winners is better reflected by the science slider than the state of being in war itself.

A lot of WWII (the period I assume that you're thinking about) resources went into a "tech race".

Unlike what happened in certain CivII scenarios, I wouldn't want to see Roman expansion wind up giving the Celts gunpowder.

[Ozymandias]

Re: New Idea

Originally posted by SK138
I don't know if this is possible to do or not in the editor but I think science rate should go up when you're at war. In just about every war, epecially the US civil war, technology increased very quickly. Anyone agree or know a way this could be done?

Two observations --

1. Major wars often occur during times of rapid technological change, which generally coincide with rapid social change, which coincides with revised views of strength, as tech progress is hardly ever uniform between nations/civs/what-have-you -- simplistically put, the industrialized North didn't need slaves whereas the largely agrarian South did. IIRC, the only major Confederate tech innovation -- albeit a huge one! -- was the ironclad (yep, I know, the Hunley as 1st submarine -- at once brilliant and an utter failure).

2. Major wars also suppress non-military advances -- WW2 basically put the television on the back-burner for its duration.

-Oz

[Martinus]

I guess you can come up with arguments either for war and for peace as far as science is concerned.

Like the Nth Rule of Acquisition:

"War is good for profit"
"Peace is good for profit"

[Gen.Dragolen]

Martinus,

Those would be rules 34 and 35 from the Ferengi Rules of Aquisition.

see: http://www.sjacob.org/trek/


D.

[Gen.Dragolen]

I think the game already does a decent job with the mobilization option.

Increased production and "military only" related production focus the results of your previous innovations that otherwise would have languished for decades in research labs. Most of the German "super weapons" had been in R&D by the university scientists all through the 1930's, but weren't rushed into service until 1944, when it was already too late for them to do any good.

And something people don't realize is that WW II started almost 5 years too early for the Nazi "Master Plan" - their economy wasn't fully mobilized until 1944 when they realized that they had lost in Russia (read 'Mobilized' status vs. Normal).

Countries like Great Britain, Canada were fully mobilized by 1940, and late 1942 for the United States. This is part of the reason for why things turned out the way they did.

Never underestimate the stupidity of great political leaders when it comes to war.


D.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by Gen.Dragolen
And something people don't realize is that WW II started almost 5 years too early for the Nazi "Master Plan" - their economy wasn't fully mobilized until 1944 when they realized that they had lost in Russia (read 'Mobilized' status vs. Normal).

Admiral Raeder actually promised Hitler that the German navy would be ready for war in 1946.

-Oz.