Weapons and technologies faults in Civ games

[Sava]

I assume that Civ 3 will be like the earlier Civ games in the regard that a good player on chieftain will be able to have Tanks vs Phalanx battles.

What bothers me about this is that the first time guns started appearing in battle, it didn't take long for the first defeated foes to find a gun on the battle field, and reproduce it. The first muskets that appeared were very crude, and easily reproduced. Then once a country made a breakthrough, like say, the idea of rifling, everyone else copied it. You have to remember that in the past there wasn't this super secret group of scientists sitting around making these discoveries. Inventors and blacksmiths made the initial discoveries, not the governments. Then weapons were produced and sold to armies. Guns, especially were and still are sold like milk at a grocery store. In WWI there were only 4 major types of guns being used. And they all were copies of the original Mauser, bolt action design.

I don't think it is possible to have such a gap in technology between close rival civs, especially in the times when firearms were first invented, because lines of communication were so open and there was no such thing as a state secret. Even in medieval times, a Frenchman could walk into an English village and watch a Blacksmith work and learn how to make a sword. The exchange of knowledge was so prevelant and so common, which is why Civ fails in its technology model.

Even the atomic bomb didn't remain a secret for long. 56 years after it was first used, anyone with internet access can look up how to make one. I hope that Firaxis fixes this problem because even on the easy difficulties, that is just too unrealistic for me. I know people like to bash realism in the civ games, but that gap in science is too much.

Most people will read this and say, "but what about the third world countries today? They aren't as advanced as the US."

The reason those countries aren't advanced is because they don't have the resources in which to build an infrastructure. It's not as if a country like Zimbabwe can't build a space shuttle, I'm sure if they wanted to, they could learn how in less than 5 years because that knowledge is so common. It's that Zimbabwe doesn't have the resources to make a space shuttle. Revolutions, such as firearms in warfare, and the industrial revolutions, have taken place in every country with the means to build an infrastructure. It has nothing to do with their scientific power. Any scientific advance that is going to be so helpful and so common, isn't going to remain a secret. When railroads were first discovered, any country that had the resources built railroads because technologies like that can't be kept secret. In the Civ games there is no concept of world travel. Even in ancient times, people traveled the world to trade and discover new things. And in doing that people learned how to do new things. How to make glass, how to work with metal, how to make guns, how to build airplanes, how to refine oil, etc.

Certain things aren't really scientific advances at all. Naval Aviation, for instance... someone just said, hey lets land planes on ships. Once one nation started doing it, everyone else who wanted to did it. Another example would be the Wheel. Once one person started making wheels, it didn't take long for someone to say hey, that thing is round and it rolls. I can use horses to pull things. Most people will read this and say, "DUH" But other people will get mad and say, "uh this ruins game play". Unfortunately some people are just so stubborn.

I think discoveries need to be seperated and not grouped as just "science". I propose a building called a weapons workshop that would just work on building weapons. Then you (as ruler) would give money to the workshop to design weapons. And once new weapons were seen, they could be reproduced if you had the necessary materials.

Other techs, such as construction and engineering techs should be grouped in other areas. And would be built according to the needs. Sanitation is an example. Once a city gets large enough to need a sewer system, its not going to take long for a person to design something and build it. This could be worked in to the game like this: A menu would pop up saying, "Sire, the streets are covered in filth, my engineers have proposed building a system that would carry away waste water" Then you could appropriate workers to build such a system. Engineering evolved from trial and error. Roman engineers discovered the dome like support structure and using stone, build aqueducts to supply people with water. They didn't wait for some discovery, when they need arose, people did what needed to be done to solve the problem.

In a game about humans, lets make them act like humans. But before you bash my realism ideas, lets remember that we (the users) give ideas, and the programmers worry about how to make them fun. Imagine that the ideas people give could be implemented to make the game fun, and please don't bash ideas.

[Gramphos]

I would like to see an ability to have the scientists to analyze a weapon.

[nlmalph]

I know people like to bash realism in the civ games, but that gap in science is too much.

I'm guessing you're intentionally trying to miss the point here. I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with people making suggestions based on realism BUT YOU MUST also provide a gameplay and game balance rationale. This isn't the civ games, this is EVERY game.

If firaxis implemented every "realism first" persons suggestions, the game would suck horribly.

Take this idea, for instance, implement it and you've just destroyed a good bit of the incentive for research. If I know I can steal any tech, it becomes super easy to proceed. If you think its critical that this happen, give us some a way to rebalance the game if your suggestion is implemented. I'm not asking people not to consider realism, but make sure it doesn't ruin the game to implement it.

BESIDES, civ2 had the ability with spies or the great library to get tech.

ALSO BESIDES, lets say, on a whim, when the yanamamo were discovered by europeans in the 40's -- and decided to attack them, what do you suppose that would look like? Machine guns vs. spears, eh? The nuclear example is telling as well, the majority of countries STILL don't have nuclear weapons.

In short, you're idea is on somewhat shaky ground from a realism perspective, and would be disasterous for gameplay. If you have a killer suggestion for implementing it while maintaining game fun and balance, I'm all ears.

[Eternal]

Something similar should be in the game but not as simplistic as the first post makes it sound.

Nations should be able to get science points from interactions with other nations, and the kind of science and the amount would be based on the context of the interaction.

Another variable would be the difference in technology levels between the civilizations and the technology that interacting nations see. For example, a nation with no tech over Masonry could not hope to get any benefit out of capturing a spent power cell. Also, if a nation with Autobobile never encounters any tanks, they couldn't get science to use towards Mobile Warfare.

The equations would of course have to be tweaked so that the incentive to research is lost because you can just aquire tech by attacking an advanced nation. It's not that it's either good or not, because it is a good idea withing acceptable limits.

That said, I think it's much too sophisticated for a Civ game. This series should remain popular for making taking over the world seem fun and easy, and having all this stuff would complicate it.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by nlmalph
I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with people making suggestions based on realism BUT YOU MUST also provide a gameplay and game balance rationale.

If firaxis implemented every "realism first" persons suggestions, the game would suck horribly.

If you have a killer suggestion for implementing it while maintaining game fun and balance, I'm all ears.

I couldnt agree more! Civ-3 gameplay & game-balance should always, with out exception, be given veto-priority, over "real world realism", then deciding about game-mechanics. If it can be combined - fine. If not, then...
Its nice to know that one (besides the team at Firaxis) isnt alone here having this viewpoint.

[tishco]

i dont like that idea cos it would miss the point of reward with new power and units. and also, just imagine a one city tribe with spearmen being attacked by a machine gunner, losing then other ones picking up a gun and knowing how to use it, its like the spanish and aztecs.
maybe it the gunner lost...

[jsw363]

Originally posted by nlmalph The nuclear example is telling as well, the majority of countries STILL don't have nuclear weapons.

If I understand his idea correctly only the Japanese (against whom nuclear weapons were used) would have an advatage in discovering them. However, many countries have developed nuclear technology and CHOOSE not to manufacture nuclear weapons. I think that it is common knowledge that the many countries includeing the Japanese, Germans, Dutch, S. Africans, Argentines, Brazilians, Sweeds, and many members of the CIS have the technology so that, if desired, they could produce nuclear weapons in a matter of months. But, in any event I don't think that this suggestion would apply to nuclear weapons.

I do think that if you lose a battle to an "inferior unit" or a group of them that it should provide that civ with some percentage advantage to discovering the relevant tech by allowing their scientists to sift through your rubble.

Why do you think the Americans were so against the Chinese boarding their spy plane this year. Because they were paranoid, or because they thought that having access to the American spy plane would give the Chinese a huge push in developing similar sorts of tech? The US didn't threaten to go to war for nothing...

[Austin]

Originally posted by jsw363


If I understand his idea correctly only the Japanese (against whom nuclear weapons were used) would have an advatage in discovering them. However, many countries have developed nuclear technology and CHOOSE not to manufacture nuclear weapons. I think that it is common knowledge that the many countries includeing the Japanese, Germans, Dutch, S. Africans, Argentines, Brazilians, Sweeds, and many members of the CIS have the technology so that, if desired, they could produce nuclear weapons in a matter of months. But, in any event I don't think that this suggestion would apply to nuclear weapons.

I do think that if you lose a battle to an "inferior unit" or a group of them that it should provide that civ with some percentage advantage to discovering the relevant tech by allowing their scientists to sift through your rubble.

Why do you think the Americans were so against the Chinese boarding their spy plane this year. Because they were paranoid, or because they thought that having access to the American spy plane would give the Chinese a huge push in developing similar sorts of tech? The US didn't threaten to go to war for nothing...

Actually the computer hardware in the recce plane the Chinese rammed was pretty outdated, and the software/data had been destroyed by the crew before the plane landed.

It was pretty much a national level pissing match brought about by an incredibly reckless Chinese pilot, and the Chinese government's pathological inability to admit to a fault.

Austin

[Sava]

Obviously my suggestion went way over your stubborn heads.

I didn't say getting nuked would allow you to build nukes. What I said was that the balance of technology is so unrealistic to the point that the gameplay suffers. In fact, the idea that someone could develop such advanced technology in isolation is what makes the gameplay suck. Weapon technology has developed in a very simple manner.

Nation 1 beats Nation 2 with rocks
Nation 2 says we need something to beat rocks
Nation 2 beats Nation 1 with clubs
Nation 1 says we need something to beat clubs
Nation 1 beats Nation 2 with swords
Nation 2 says we need something to beat swords
Nation 2 beats Nation 1 with guns
etc, etc.

The thing you short sided stubborn people think, is that there is no communication between people.

In the past, people didn't just stay in one place. Once the first guy used a sharpened stick. Another guy said "I can make that!" And he made it. You have to realize that metal working wasn't discovered for the sole purpose of making weapons. Metal working was discovered.... the knowledge of metal working spread throughout the known world. Then when weapons started appearing, different nations learned that they could do the same thing. Gunpowder was no different. Gunpowder was around for a long time before people figured out how to make guns. Once the first crude muskets appeared, other people copied the designs... that's how weapons technology evolves... through constant competition. NOT THROUGH BLIND STUPID RESEARCH BY HAVING LITTLE TRADE UNITS THAT AUTOMATICALLY ARE CONVERTED INTO SCIENCE!!!!!! YOU MAY THINK ITS FUN BUT IT IS STUPID!!!

It was a good starting point, but it needs to evolve to be realistic.

Imagine, for instance, if a Nazi army were to travel back in time and fight a medieval army. Sure the Nazis would slaughter them, but I bet at least one Nazi would die, or drop his gun. One person would find this gun, take it to a blacksmith and he would probably be able to make a working model. IT DOESN"T TAKE A GENIUS TO SEE HOW A GUN WORKS... IF UNEDUCATED THIRD WORLD PEOPLE CAN SEE HOW TO USE A GUN IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD!!!

The other example I want to comment on is the Aztec/Spanish thing. The Aztecs didn't develop advanced weapons because they didn't need them. WEAPONS HAVE DEVELOPED BASED ON DEMAND FOR THEM. THE MOORS NEEDED TO TAKE DOWN THE WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, SO THEY BUILT CANNONS TO DO SO!!! THE US NEEDED TO END THE WAR IN JAPAN SO THEY BUILT AN ATOMIC BOMB!!!

Weapons and war technologies have been developed based on need and demand. Not based on setting some stupid research goal. IT IS POSSIBLE TO KEEP THE GAME FUN WHILE CHANGING THIS STUPID WAY OF DISCOVERING THINGS!!

Any one who posts saying, "uuuhhhh that would make the gameplay suck...." is obviously retarded.

[Gramphos]

If something like this should be implemented it should be the scientist that work with the weapons you have taken, you should not automatically get it. You would just be able to skip some of the prerequires for it, but it would take some longer to invent if you hadn't the prerequires. If you had them it should speed up a bit.

[Sava]

Originally posted by nlmalph


I'm guessing you're intentionally trying to miss the point here. I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with people making suggestions based on realism BUT YOU MUST also provide a gameplay and game balance rationale. This isn't the civ games, this is EVERY game.

I said that research should be just clicking on what advance you want. I am changing how techs are discovered, that doesn't change the general gameplay. Instead of clicking on "Gunpowder" and poof you make musketeers, you would build a prototype unit. Muskets didn't start out so advanced, they were very crude and easily copied. Then the defeated foe would make its own prototype unit. I suggest a building called a weapons workshop. In the workshop, weapons are designed, and armies take them into battle. Weapon technology evolves slowly and evolves with being tested in battle. If you knew anything about history you would know that.

If firaxis implemented every "realism first" persons suggestions, the game would suck horribly.

No it wouldn't because civ was made to BE REALISTIC YOU TWIT

Take this idea, for instance, implement it and you've just destroyed a good bit of the incentive for research. If I know I can steal any tech, it becomes super easy to proceed. If you think its critical that this happen, give us some a way to rebalance the game if your suggestion is implemented. I'm not asking people not to consider realism, but make sure it doesn't ruin the game to implement it.

So basically, you are saying that you want a game were human beings fight apes? I don't understand. If I took a modern weapon to a 12th century blacksmith, I'm sure he could make a working model. And guess what... In every single discovery in the history of mankind, one person discovered something and everyone else copied it PLAIN AND SIMPLE! Every single piece of technology in the Civilization games was discovered by one person or one group of people and then copied by everyone else! You are retarded and naive if you think otherwise. In a game about humans, why is it so bad that I want humans to act like humans and to learn like humans.

BESIDES, civ2 had the ability with spies or the great library to get tech.

That is so unrealistic it ruins gameplay. Civilization is about HUMANS. HUMANS LEARN FROM SEEING, TOUCHING, LOOKING, AND HEARING THINGS. SCIENCE IS LEARNING. WHY CAN'T SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN A GAME ABOUT HUMANS FOLLOW THE PATTERN OF HOW HUMANS LEARN?

ALSO BESIDES, lets say, on a whim, when the yanamamo were discovered by europeans in the 40's -- and decided to attack them, what do you suppose that would look like? Machine guns vs. spears, eh? The nuclear example is telling as well, the majority of countries STILL don't have nuclear weapons.

The first two sentences make no sense, I can't respond to an incoherent rambling... Every country in the world today has or can easily obtain the knowledge of how to make a nuclear weapon. The reason why Uganda can't launch nukes is because they don't have the materials to make a nuclear missile. Anyone can go on the internet and find out how to make a nuclear weapon. You are naive to think otherwise.

In short, you're idea is on somewhat shaky ground from a realism perspective, and would be disasterous for gameplay. If you have a killer suggestion for implementing it while maintaining game fun and balance, I'm all ears.

My idea is completely based on reality, its just that you are unable to understand what I am saying. By posting such a retarded response, you make yourself look stupid. You obviously have no programming knowledge, either. This is how things get done in the programming world. Suggestions, like mine, are made. Programmers listen to the suggestions, and write a program to accomplish what I (as the user) want. It isn't the user's responsibility to present the programmer with a working model on what the user wants, if that were the case, everyone would be able to make their own games and there would be no need for programmers. You sound like you are around 15 years old, so I'm not going to make any more response to your posts. I just hope that someone smart will read my suggestions and comment.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
No it wouldn't because civ was made to BE REALISTIC YOU TWIT.

I can't respond to an incoherent rambling...

My idea is completely based on reality, its just that you are unable to understand what I am saying.

By posting such a retarded response, you make yourself look stupid.

You sound like you are around 15 years old, so I'm not going to make any more response to your posts.

I just hope that someone smart will read my suggestions and comment.

Well, what can one respond to above? You seems to be a - soon to be banned if you not careful.

[Gramphos]

Civ is made to be fun, and if possible also realistic, but fun in first place. And if everyone would get the weapons I had in the turn direct when I've used them that aren't fun. Also I'd stop researching in some games, as I would get what I needed anyway them soon enough any way.
The only thing that could be done (and I think it already is) is to have cheaper inventions for the one that are behind, either only when he "finds weapons", or always (as I think it is in Civ2 (Can someone help me out here.))

[Austin]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin

The thing you short sided stubborn people think, is that there is no communication between people.

We understand just fine, the point is that if the relative tech level difference is too big you won't be able to instantly grasp the technology just by looking at it.

Hand Leonardo Di Vinci an Pentium computer and ask him to make a duplicate. There is no way in hell he'd ever be able to do it.

In the past, people didn't just stay in one place. Once the first guy used a sharpened stick. Another guy said "I can make that!" And he made it. You have to realize that metal working wasn't discovered for the sole purpose of making weapons. Metal working was discovered.... the knowledge of metal working spread throughout the known world. Then when weapons started appearing, different nations learned that they could do the same thing. Gunpowder was no different. Gunpowder was around for a long time before people figured out how to make guns. Once the first crude muskets appeared, other people copied the designs... that's how weapons technology evolves... through constant competition. NOT THROUGH BLIND STUPID RESEARCH BY HAVING LITTLE TRADE UNITS THAT AUTOMATICALLY ARE CONVERTED INTO SCIENCE!!!!!! YOU MAY THINK ITS FUN BUT IT IS STUPID!!!

On a grand macroscopic scale, which is the scale that Civ is at, this is exactly what happens. Do you know how long the Hittitites held on to their monopoly of steel making in the ancient world?

It was a good starting point, but it needs to evolve to be realistic.

Imagine, for instance, if a Nazi army were to travel back in time and fight a medieval army. Sure the Nazis would slaughter them, but I bet at least one Nazi would die, or drop his gun. One person would find this gun, take it to a blacksmith and he would probably be able to make a working model. IT DOESN"T TAKE A GENIUS TO SEE HOW A GUN WORKS... IF UNEDUCATED THIRD WORLD PEOPLE CAN SEE HOW TO USE A GUN IT CAN'T BE THAT HARD!!!

There is no way in hell a medieval blacksmith could reproduce a working modern firearm, even given a working copy . He wouldn't be able to produce steel of the proper strength for the gun barrel, he wouldn't be able to machine a breach and block of close enough tolerances, he wouldn't know how to reproduce the bullet propellant or primer either. There is a HUGE gap of learning there.

The other example I want to comment on is the Aztec/Spanish thing. The Aztecs didn't develop advanced weapons because they didn't need them. WEAPONS HAVE DEVELOPED BASED ON DEMAND FOR THEM. THE MOORS NEEDED TO TAKE DOWN THE WALLS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, SO THEY BUILT CANNONS TO DO SO!!! THE US NEEDED TO END THE WAR IN JAPAN SO THEY BUILT AN ATOMIC BOMB!!!

There was no way that the Aztecs would be able to understand and assimilate Spanish technology in time to make any difference. They lacked the basic technological knowledge to understand Spanish weaponry even if they did capture it.

Austin

[smellymummy]

if i remember right, the more trade arrows you have the more science you can produce.. You could get more trade points by making trade routes, among other things.

Sometimes when giving technology or a unit to another civ, they would then maybe learn a new tech.

The great library allows another civ to learn a new tech when many other civs know about it (i hope I'm accurate, I haven't played civ in a long time).

Anyway these three examples are pretty much where it comes to implement scientific advancement through human communication. There might be more though. Soulassassin is right (even though really tempermental..), the game doesnt have a realistic approach to the context of scientific advancement.

Civ3 might fix this, we still don't know yet exactly how trade and culture will affect science now do we? I do believe it is our job to be able to make an intelligent fault proof implementation of an idea; the game studios already have their hands full with the core game and low-documented yet great suggestions, don't you think?

A weapon workshop is somewhat interesting. It would be better to be it's own screen, part of the military advisor for example. I'm not even going to try to explain this, i'm quite happy on how civ3 is shapping out to be, but if a weapon worksop type of scientific advancement would be implemented, then it would require the same thing for all other aspects of science and advancement.

It could work side by side with a chronological order on how nations discover and learn. An international pool of knowledge would grow each turn depending on culture of all the civs. Based on your contributions (and even unique contributions, like a special research team, the founding of a university, etc), you would then get advances. Perhaps this pool would be broken down by continent, which would seriously hamper anyone found all alone on a continent far far away... Balanced right and it wouldnt result in nuke techs by 1200AD either.

There could be some secret research, but only after the idea of nationalism or something of the sorts (i'm missing the right word), where the goverment would want to do research to give them an upper hand. Then new military units could be built until a more public knowledge of them comes out..

Well I did say I wasn't going to try to make an ellaborate suggestion, so I'll stop now

edit:

and austin's above post shows exactly how faulty the civ way of working is, by explaining the lack or space between tech advancement. Imagine a civ game, spanish and aztecs only, both grow on same island. The spanish can very well end up with nukes before the aztecs understand how to make butter knives. This is wrong. Now if the aztecs are an ocean away, isolated - that makes sense.

[Slax]

I've always thought that neighbouring civs and civ that have made contact should be given some science advantage towards discovering advances each of these civs has already discovered, adjusted according to the length and type of contact.

But they only get an 'advantage' (a certain number of science points towards a specific advance). They still must complete the science point accumulation. It does not mean leaps to advances far from the science level they have attained.

[sebanaj]

another thing would be, before u didn't get the knowledge of a technology u don't know it exists, so u have to find it... not on a list of next buys! with this we would get into more depth and realism, rather than getting knowledge because someone else used something... u would get to know that those things exist

[Admiral PJ]

even if , say a indian aquired a musket from an english invader, he wouldn't be able to reproduce it without detailed knowledge of the manufacturing process and chemistry science to make the gunpowder. Therefore only technological countries that are similar and close in advance rate should be able to work out technology from the other.
Perhaps cities near foreign nations should get extra science bonuses for cultural/scientific mixing and copying or learning from the other.

PJ

[PGM]

Originally posted by nlmalph
I have NO PROBLEM whatsoever with people making suggestions based on realism BUT YOU MUST also provide a gameplay and game balance rationale.

If firaxis implemented every "realism first" persons suggestions, the game would suck horribly.

If you have a killer suggestion for implementing it while maintaining game fun and balance, I'm all ears.

[Urban Ranger]

He has a point up to a certain point.

I think a simplied model can work like this:

1. Unit A fights with Unit B
2. If Unit A wins, it has a certain chance of finding stuff left by Unit B
3. If Unit A's civ is within a certain range of Unit B's civ, it gains certain bonuses when it starts reseraching the civ advance needed to build units of type B.

For example, say a tank attacks a rifleman and losses. The civ that controls the rifleman unit has a chance of capturing a tank or two. That civ then has a bonus when it starts to research the tech that allows tanks to be built, if it is also in the Modern Age.

[GaryGuanine]

The issue I have with this idea is that being able to make a unit is not simply a problem of realizing that rifling the barrel of a firearm increases accuracy. It's getting together a huge infrastructure to produce great amounts of rifled barrels. The "scientific advance" isn't just figuring out how rifling works, it's figuring out how to make lots of rifled barrels.

I would think this idea would apply much, much more to the ancient world. A sword vs. a club is much less of a leap than smoothbore to rifled gun barrels, though it still doesn't really apply. The club-wielders simply don't have the ability to produce lots of swords. It's not "sharp metal object", it's "get metal from ground, heat up, work into shape, fold over, etc."

Gary

[gremalkin]

Civ 2 covers this.. Science is gained from trade, representing communication with other nations. (Further increases in trade with caravans).

If one is attacked by an enemy with firearms and you are still weilding swords, any intelligent person will surely aim all their research at firearms. This is representative of picking up guns from the field of battle and depending on your current technological level learning to reproduce them.

I think that research works fine as it is, fairly realistic and highly competitive.

If it aint broke, don't try to fix it.. Nice rant tho..

[Sava]

I must apologize for that rant, I did not mean to resort to name calling. I got aggravated at the fact that that guy did not understand my point and then basically said the idea sucked based on his misinterpretation.

One more thing I wanted to respond to is that Civ games have no concept of world travel. One could say that the trade represents that. But I disagree with the method that trade and science are aqcuired.

I am a big opponent of the roads and rail = trade. As long as the cities are linked, the amount of roads in the city ZOC shouldn't impact trade, and certainly shouldn't impact science. Until close to the Age of Invention, there was no concept of "scientific development". Countries didn't research technologies the way they are researched in the game.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with the specifics of my idea, I think that all civers in general would agree that the science model needs to be more realistic.

This is the goal of my idea so as not to confuse any one else.

To keep the flow of scientific research, i.e the ease of the interface, the speed of the game, the same as previous Civ games. But, at the same time, changing the symantics of the tech interface in the game so that it is more accurate as to how science and technology is acquired. Also, I feel that seperating and allowing simultaneaous research is something that should be addressed. Some trade of technology, especially in ancient and medieval times should not be under direct control of the player. Other technologies should be able to spread word of mouth throughout the world based on travelers. Simple things like making pottery, glass making, gunpowder, iron smelting are relatively low skill applications that require little time to learn, and should be treated accordingly. But other techs, Nuclear Fission, Fusion Power(conjecture), Stealth technology, should not be able to be just passed by word of mouth.



Again, I am sorry for my ranting before. Sometimes I forget we're all fans of the same game(s).

[Sava]

One more point I wanted to make is that people seemed to be stuck in this Modern Age, Ancient Age, type of thinking. Ages, such as Bronze Age, Iron Age, Jet Age, etc, are referred to in the global sense. Which means during that time, the entire world (except for isolated peoples) were using Iron or whatever. At no point in human history has there been such a gap in technology, except for peoples that remained isolated from Europe and Asia. The difference between a nation like the US and a third world country is not the level of science, necessarily. The difference is the abundance of resources and the quality of the infrastructure. If Iraq had the resources, there is no doubt in my mind that they could very well produce the same goods as the West.

Europe is a prime example of what I am talking about. Because of how close the different nations in Europe are, their technological development has been somewhat even. It is absolutely impossible to have a tank vs spearmen scenario when countries are so close together. Countries have constantly been warring each other, and so the technological capabilities have been no secret. Only a few instances of technological superiority have arisen.

Nazi Germany's Blitzkrieg is the most recent example. The Nazis had better artillery, airplanes, and tanks then the rest of Europe at that time. That's why they pushed so hard and fast throughout that part of the world. But once England could match their air power in the West, and Russia could match their artillery and tank power in the East, the advancing stopped. Then with the help of the US, the big three were able to defeat the Nazis.

The reason Europeans were able to extend their influence into the Americas is the simple fact that the Native Americans (North and South American tribes) had never seen such weapons before. The Europeans came too fast for the Native Americans to catch up technologically and were subsequently all but wiped out. Had the Europeans been slower in their Exodus to the New World, the peoples in North and South America quite possibly might have caught up, technologically.

[fluffy]

where's the 'realism' in chess? are you suggesting it should be changed too?

give me gameplay anyday - I get enough 'realism' in real life!

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by fluffy
where's the 'realism' in chess? are you suggesting it should be changed too?

give me gameplay anyday - I get enough 'realism' in real life!

You win if you kill the King

Gameplay: priority 1
AI: priority 2
More Civs: priority 3
Realism: priority 4

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Most people will read this and say, "but what about the third world countries today? They aren't as advanced as the US."

The reason those countries aren't advanced is because they don't have the resources in which to build an infrastructure. It's not as if a country like Zimbabwe can't build a space shuttle, I'm sure if they wanted to, they could learn how in less than 5 years because that knowledge is so common. It's that Zimbabwe doesn't have the resources to make a space shuttle. Revolutions, such as firearms in warfare, and the industrial revolutions, have taken place in every country with the means to build an infrastructure. It has nothing to do with their scientific power. Any scientific advance that is going to be so helpful and so common, isn't going to remain a secret.

Japan's got all the technology you can think of and they can barely build a space shuttle. It's been 15 years since they first proposed it and they're still not close to actually using one.

Also China, they've had the resources for years, even direct technical aid from Russia for at least 10 and they are only now attempting to replicate Gagarin and Shepard. There's a lot more to tech, especially modern tech then appears.

[Edward]

If we allow tech secrets to leak out of advanced nations, how about letting my French spy walk into an English town and buy a roadmap. If techs can become general knowledge then I think the locations of older roads and cities should as well.

At least give me a "steal maps" option.

[RobC]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
Any one who posts saying, "uuuhhhh that would make the gameplay suck...." is obviously retarded.

Wow...what incredible logic. Anyone who disagrees with you is obviously retarded. Grow up. In any successful game, gameplay trumps realism. The most realistic you can get is real life, and if that was so fun, who would waste time and money on computer games. Scenarios and simulations like these are interesting because you can focus on certain things like diplomacy, science, culture, or war in a simplified model based on balancing investment in the different areas. A game that's not realistic can still be fun, but what's the point of a realistic game that's no fun to play? Yes, part of the fun is the fact that the game is loosely based on our world's history and civilizations, but I don't think that the somewhat simplistic science/technology model detracts from the enjoyment of 're-writing history'. If you have some specific suggestions as to how you could incorporate a more realistic model while maintaining the fun of playing the game, you would probably get more support from others in this forum. If all you want to do is throw a fit because people don't agree with your rants, then maybe you should relocate to the alt.childish.tantrums newsgroup.