I’m not sure that anyone has opened a thread on this topic specifically so here it is.

The main thing is either time going by WAY too quickly proportional to unit movement or that too slowly when there is nothing to do.

In the latter case, the problem is not with time IMO but rather that the non-combat elements of the game are too simplistic (i.e. there’s just not enough (fun—brain stimulating) stuff to do when you’re not at war).

But a solution definitely needs to be found in the former case.

I was thinking along the lines switching from Years to Weeks when at war. Two problems with this that immediately come to mind are: a) building times will be substantially reduced unless everything operates on a fraction-of-a-year basis or something and b) lengthy wars will eat up a lot of time in RL (the point is to make the game faster, not slower).

If you can think of something better, by all means...

The game is unfortunately long enough as is. Dilating periods of war, or dilating the entire game to make war strategy more intricate would hurt the game in the long run. That kind of detailed war really is only viable in a game that spans a shorter time frame than Civ. I think you're right that the game needs to be faster, not slower.

On the other hand, making movement speeds/times realistic would hurt gameplay a lot. It's bad enough that railroads can get you across a country within a single turn. It would be even worse if this were the case with roads or rough terrain was easier to traverse. One of the only major war strategies is where you place your units -- if they can move quickly, this doesn't matter. So realism-in-movement should not be a goal.

Making non-war times more interesting is a good goal, though.

Ahhh, but if we applied Frekks Capacity system to roads as well as rail, then there may indeed be a way to ramp up road speeds, whilst still leaving game strategy in place-especially if such rapid movement were limited to within your own borders!! Unit placement would still be very valuable, as you would only be able to move a few units per turn until you had a more substantial capacity!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Good idea, yoshi :goodjob: !

The turns in civ has always been a bit fuzzy. Especially in ancient era.


I was thinking along the lines switching from Years to Weeks when at war.

But I think it will be better if the switching was from years to month. So when war is declared by any nation on an other nation you go into this mode. Only nations which have made contact should experience this switch. If your nation is not involved you should have two choises:

You could declare yourself neutral - if you feel that you are well enough defended. If you are attacked or units trespass your territory - you also switch to the 'war mode'. If it is done without a declaration of war it would count as an great atrocity.

Or you could declare yourself 'on alert' - you feel threatened/uncertain by the comming events, and you immediately switch to 'war mode'. If you are attacked or units trespass your territory without a declaration of war it would count as an smaller atrocity. You should be able to switch off when you dont feel threatened and there by declareing yourself neutral.

No production or research should be carried out until the end of the war, unless the war lasts longer than a turn. You should be able to rush certain improvements (citywalls, barraks or the like) or units (no workers or settlers)when in this mode. You should not be able to move settlers or workers then in this mode.

Aks K

The "time" of each turn is irrevant and only there to give a sense of the passing of time. I think it would be better to just get rid of the whole year thing all together.

Sometimes I feel like time should be a relative thing, kind of the way that it is in Age of Empires (which I don't really like as a game, by the way, and generally would like to see Civ differentiate itself from more and more).

In Age of Empires, there is no official time cue of 500 BC or 1400 AD. The only time cue is technology. Being this abstract actually makes it easier for the user to suspend their disbelief.

(But deeper than resolving this time issue is also making peace time more interesting. Peace should have more interesting choices than how to build up for your next military campaign.)

@Aussie_Lurker: Frekks Capacity system. Could you post a link to that thread so I can check it out?

@Aks K: You brought up something I'd forgotten to mention in the list of problems: what happens to players that aren't at war when a war goes on. If you slow their pace it will be irritating for them because they won't have much to do.
But there has to be a way around that. What about MP games that use time-altering features? Enter the Matrix uses bullet-time so what happens to the other players when one player uses bullet-time? Does the whole map (all players) go into that mode? Giving the answer to this might give an answer to the problem of what to do if using the 'war-time' (yes, I know that sounds corny but it's all I could think of) in Civ4.


Hmm...the non-specific passage of time is something I've used in some scens (e.g. June 1939 A.D. = Turn 1). It has the effect of making the player care less about how long stuff takes--because they can't refer to historical dates--but there are still x turns turns to the end so this doesn't make the game go any faster (where turns are concerned).

BTW, the reason why Civ uses year-based dates is so you can calculate the number of turns to the building of an improvement or dicovery of a tech , etc.

But there has to be a way around that. What about MP games that use time-altering features? Enter the Matrix uses bullet-time so what happens to the other players when one player uses bullet-time?

I have never tried mp games, sorry. The troop movement still needs to be adjusted in some way. Maybe some/most units should have a operational radius (scouts shouldnt). Maybe units should be able to move several time in one turn using a timer (i think there is allready something similar in mp).

Aks K

Simultaneous turn has its advanatages (namely that you can move to intercept a rival's unit) but it takes up a lot more of your system's resources because all players (esp. all AI) are functioning at the same time so it's much more like RTS. This is probably one of the reasons why ST mode is ony available in MP in Civ3).

Troop movement: How would this work in relation to production, income and research?

Note that the need ofr a change is for gameplay reasons, not temporal realism; as was said earlier, the date is not that important as it just gives you an idea of how many turns b/w A and B--and even then is not really necessary. Where combat is concerned, you basically want to avoid taking so long to get your troops to the enemy that you have time to research whole new types of units (e.g. you send your Medieval Inf. to attack an enemy fortified Medieval Inf. and by the time you get there he has already upgraded to a Musketman). It takes way too long to get units to their destinations on even the largest (smallest scale) maps. It's just not proportional to production, income and especially tech advancement. If you make them proportional, the game takes too long. Hence the problem.

this time concept is would become a very complicated thing, if years eventually turn into weeks, as a gradual process. i totoally agree on emphasising that modern military can get more done in less time thanks to the marvels of science, but then a whole list of other things must be considerd.

#1 if one country is modern and into weeks, how do u integrate it with a country who is primitive and in years.

#2 if a countries turn is in weeks, how could unit loses not greatly impact the population.

#3 in 52 weeks u could in theory , wipe out any possible chance of reinforcements or growth for the next year, depending on the severity of the war (eligiable age of soldiers. 18-45) ...

god there are so many factors with time that must be considered to make the whole thing fesible. listing these factors take time, and time to think on the actual indepthness that time has, and thats time i dont have....i listed just the general few, but i can seriously go on and on about all the details that would be imparative to make this time concept accurate and real, but knowing what it entails would be way to advanced for anyone to program.

Well, I am an advocate of a 'semi-simultaneous' movement system-whereby every player (and AI players) gets his/her full movement and non-movement based activity before the next player has theirs. After all of this has occured, then resultant combats between units occupying the same square are resolved. The order of a players turn would be based on an 'initiative'-type system, whereby larger empires with large numbers of units tend to go first-thus ceding the initiative to their smaller opponents (who can essentially 'see' their foes coming ;)).

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

a bit different topic:
The turn times are in civ3 adjusted that the modern age should come at about 1950 (so and so many turns) ... on chieftain level. But who actually plays on that level?

Shouldn't it be, that on the level most players play on (monarch probably?), the time is historical. Meaning, you reach the Middle Ages between 0 AD and 1000 AD, the Industrial age, somewhere around 1850 and the Modern Age a 100 years later?).

That'd be a huge improvement for me, cause I find it kinda silly to be in the Industrial Age at 1000 AD. ( I know it's a gameplay fun, and that it's partly historical, as some civs could have been in the industrial age at that time, had not ... happened. :) but still.. )

mfG mitsho

Yeah, mitsho. Sometimes I almost feel like the years should reflect the era, instead of relying on the era to correspond to the year. If it takes them 125 or 175 turns to get to the middle ages, the year should still be "700 AD" when they get there.

Just like how in some games it doesn't matter whether you finish the dungeon in 10 minutes or 60 minutes -- when you walk outside, you make it just in time to see the sunrise. I don't have a problem with this, truthfully.

I support the idea of a WE-GO system, but with these requirements.

1) All players plan their move, but no execution happens.
2) All execution is simeoultaneous, so no one gets an advantage from going first.

Also battlegroups(its gonna be in Civ 4) will now have what I refer to as a Sphere of Operation(SOF). This SOF will usually extend more with roads, infrastructure, terrain. Ancient era battlegroups might have a SOF around 2-3 squares in good terrain, modern ones would have a lot more. Units whose SOFs overlap then have to decide how to procede(various levels of engagement ranging from 'evasion' to 'search and destroy'). This way groups still only have the standard 1-2 MP, but it feels like full campaigns are occuring when pieces start movijng together.

Where combat is concerned, you basically want to avoid taking so long to get your troops to the enemy that you have time to research whole new types of units (e.g. you send your Medieval Inf. to attack an enemy fortified Medieval Inf. and by the time you get there he has already upgraded to a Musketman). It takes way too long to get units to their destinations on even the largest (smallest scale) maps. It's just not proportional to production, income and especially tech advancement. If you make them proportional, the game takes too long. Hence the problem.

I agree with you on this. The time is somewhat imbalanced. Maybe Movement along roads should be increased to adjust this. The cost should now be 1/5 or even less. Perhaps the cost of movement should be 1/10 on own roads, 1/5 on road owned by civ, which you have a RoP and 1/2 on enemy roads.

I support the idea of a WE-GO system, but with these requirements.

1) All players plan their move, but no execution happens.
2) All execution is simeoultaneous, so no one gets an advantage from going first.


Sound like a good idea, sir_schwick. But what happens if two friendly/hostile units try to enter the same square?

In the hostile case - what will determine the combat values (only their attack value or their highest value?). If two defence units enters the same square will the outcome be determined by their defence values?

In the friendly case - who will enter the square? There could result in abuse.


Also battlegroups(its gonna be in Civ 4) will now have what I refer to as a Sphere of Operation(SOF). This SOF will usually extend more with roads, infrastructure, terrain. Ancient era battlegroups might have a SOF around 2-3 squares in good terrain, modern ones would have a lot more. Units whose SOFs overlap then have to decide how to procede(various levels of engagement ranging from 'evasion' to 'search and destroy'). This way groups still only have the standard 1-2 MP, but it feels like full campaigns are occuring when pieces start movijng together.

Isnt this close to what I mentioned earlier? Anyway I would like to see this in cIV!!! Just remember that scouts should have infinite SOF.

Aks K

SOF is not the same as the logistical limit or range of the battlegroup from supplies. SOF refers to what tiles a battlegroup can effectively have a military presence in. If two different battlegroups have overlaping SOF, they have an oppurtunity for engagment. If two different battlegroups end up moveing towards the same square it is the same as if they had overlapping SOF. Obviously it is possible for armies to share a space, especially if they are allied(you could in SMAC).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=80699&stc=1

In that picture there are two battlegroups, A and B. Each has a SOF of one in the surrounding terrain. They overlap in two squares, so after movmeent was completed, the leaders of both civs would have to decide what they want their next move to be(what engagement to head at). Then that move is executed. You keep doing the mini-engagment round until units no longer are in engagment terms. This could mean one of them has lost and has withdrawn or been decimated. It could also mean both leaders have withdrawn from engagment.

SOF is not the same as the logistical limit or range of the battlegroup from supplies.

Got it. :blush:

In that picture there are two battlegroups, A and B. Each has a SOF of one in the surrounding terrain. They overlap in two squares, so after movmeent was completed, the leaders of both civs would have to decide what they want their next move to be(what engagement to head at). Then that move is executed. You keep doing the mini-engagment round until units no longer are in engagment terms. This could mean one of them has lost and has withdrawn or been decimated. It could also mean both leaders have withdrawn from engagment.

Is the move executed at once or in turn? Will the battlegroups fight as individual units or as one group?

Aks K

a bit different topic:
The turn times are in civ3 adjusted that the modern age should come at about 1950 (so and so many turns) ... on chieftain level. But who actually plays on that level?

Shouldn't it be, that on the level most players play on (monarch probably?), the time is historical. Meaning, you reach the Middle Ages between 0 AD and 1000 AD, the Industrial age, somewhere around 1850 and the Modern Age a 100 years later?).

That'd be a huge improvement for me, cause I find it kinda silly to be in the Industrial Age at 1000 AD. ( I know it's a gameplay fun, and that it's partly historical, as some civs could have been in the industrial age at that time, had not ... happened. :) but still.. )

mfG mitsho

As you yourself point out - the industrial age could have happened a lot sooner, if not for the great setbacks of the mid-first millenium.

And that's where the theory of tying the ages to their earth equivalent wounds up not working too well, because the earth equivalent you use are those of the MODERN civilizations, but most of these got started a LARGE stretch later than the game starting date. The Germans, Franks, etc, were virtually irrelevant until the early first millenium AD ; they were "Ancient Age" from that until about 800 AD (Charlemagne), then they were "Medieval" from 800 until about 1830 or so (1850 is a bit too late, IMO), then industrial until about 1940, then modern afterwards. Same with Japan : yeah, they were medieval from about 1200 to 1800, yeah they were industrial from 1860 to 1950, and so forth...but the "Japanese" civilization, in game terms, only got started in 400 AD or so, before that they were pretty much prehistorical.

@Oda Are you making a point against my suggestion or against ages? :)

Well, ages are a major gameplay feature that I don't really bother with and my suggestion is just something minor that could respectively has to be done regardless of having ages or not. :)

mfG mitsho

PS: But really, ages are something not really needed, but it's the wrong thread here :))

In WE-GO all moves are planned than execution is simeoultaneous. Obviously some battlegroups will have initiative in terms of mobility, which is important in engagement. Battlegroups should fight as 'groups', but I am not sure to the mechanics right now.

@Oda Are you making a point against my suggestion or against ages? :)

Well, ages are a major gameplay feature that I don't really bother with and my suggestion is just something minor that could respectively has to be done regardless of having ages or not. :)

mfG mitsho

PS: But really, ages are something not really needed, but it's the wrong thread here :))

Against your suggestion, the point being essentialy : "A civilization that has been in more or less uninterupted development from 4000 BC to today would hit medieval-industrial-imperial a LOT faster cirda 800-1000AD, circa 1800-1900 AD and circa 1950 AD. The civilizations that DID hit medieval and so forth at those ages are civilizations that only really appeared on the map (in civ terms) in 0 or even later (Japan, in Civ terms, would have been nothing but barb huts until sometime along the lines of 300-500 AD, for example).

And of course, interrupting development in a surefire way would most likely only help reduce the enjoyment of the players, who wouldn't like having outside factors they have no control over just randomly pop up and knock them back in an "unfair" (ie, not AI-victory) way.

I know, but as you said this game isn't realistic at all. (it's about alternate history, so not historical, but also not ahistorical). Thus, it's not needed that everything develops as it should (a 4000 BC civ reaching MA, industrial etc a lot earlier than 800 AD, etc.).
(because that would be historical).

But it'd simply be more fun for me if the times are 'correct'. I simply do not enjoy being able to build railroads in 1130 AD.

And besides, in civ3 - they have looked that the turns and the elapsed time is roughly chronologically correct. They simply looked only on Chieftain level. And imo, they should looked at that in one of the middle levels, so that overall it's correct. And not gets earlier and earlier the higher you play.

mfG mitsho

like someone said earlier, civ 3 isnt a game based on the history of ourselves, but it is of the history that we create. so forget the whole thing of civ 4 being accurate with our world, because thats not the point of the game....the point is to create our own world and history, not live in someone elses world and history.

Then they should change turn lengths to reflect current technology. This way time moves in years in the modern era, decades in the ancient era. Also, eliminate BC and define everthing from a zero point. BC is based off of the Gregorian calender.

Well, thank you sir_schwick for answering for me :)

mfG mitsho

Then they should change turn lengths to reflect current technology. This way time moves in years in the modern era, decades in the ancient era. Also, eliminate BC and define everthing from a zero point. BC is based off of the Gregorian calender.

actually i was thinking about the 0 point last night...but isnt it nice to see where ur civs at compared to where the real worlds at?


its like getting tanks in the mid 1800's, and wondering if the world was like that where would we be now (2005)

Maybe once per game you could define an event as the BC mark, or there would be a setting to still allow Civ to calculate the BC mark.

actually i was thinking about the 0 point last night...but isnt it nice to see where ur civs at compared to where the real worlds at?


its like getting tanks in the mid 1800's, and wondering if the world was like that where would we be now (2005)

There is something that just feels great about that. It would be nice to also have an artifial time, which would just the turn number that you are on.

I still think their should be years since the zero point, just so you get a scale of how long this war lasted or since the GA etc.

Years reflecting level of development (as opposed to the other way around):

First, in Civ3 you can determine the year 'jump-rate' of turns in the Scenario Properties screen in the Editor (I think this feature was introduced in C3C) so you can set the default 'jumps' to what they are at Chieftain level.

Second, the years are just there to give you an idea of the passage of time--the 'jumping' effect actually does more harm than good in this sense because unless you know how big the next jump is going to be, you can't calculate how long something will take to build, for instance.

The time question concerns unit action proportional to all other activity in the game, not the format of turns for their sake only.

'WE-GO/SOF' system(s):

Doesn't allow for reactions to attacks so you're still in the same boat as the default turn-based mode (e.g. if you send your units to the east but the enemy attacks in the west, you've made your decision already so your troops will continue moving to the east even while the enemy attacks to the west).
SOF seems a bit complex for Civ (especially considering the Firaxis has
'simplicity" on the brain.

I agree with you on this. The time is somewhat imbalanced. Maybe Movement along roads should be increased to adjust this. The cost should now be 1/5 or even less. Perhaps the cost of movement should be 1/10 on own roads, 1/5 on road owned by civ, which you have a RoP and 1/2 on enemy roads.

Some scens have done this but it only works if you play in real-time (or at the very least simultaneous turns) as otherwise, a fast enemy unit can drive way past you before you can do anything to stop him.


2 units enter same square:

That's easy, fastest one goes first, if both same, then randomizer decides. But really, what are the odds that 2 units will enter the same square at the exact same second? (If this happens frequently in Civ3, it must be because unit movement is divided into 'turns' where unit move every x seconds.

One way of making units act mid-turn is to automat their response via stances (like RTS units); aggressive stance = unit will move to attack any unit that enters its visual range, defensive stance = unit will attack only units that enter ZoC; Fortified = unit only defends (the way it is now minus ZoC 'free shots'--so artillery would function justas it does in Civ3).

That's easy, fastest one goes first, if both same, then randomizer decides. But really, what are the odds that 2 units will enter the same square at the exact same second? (If this happens frequently in Civ3, it must be because unit movement is divided into 'turns' where unit move every x seconds.

I have thought of a solution to this which is plausible, allows for interesting interactions. All battlegroups(should be free, integral part of civ) have an Operational Radius. This can range, based on terrain it crosses, etc. from 1 square in ancient to several in modern. Any time two units ORs partially overlap, they can have some kind of contact. From there the mechanics can be discussed later.

I think 'time' should be eliminated from Civ. It doesn't make sense, because... well, a lot of the long-term appeal comes from the fact that no two games are the same, right? Maximum possible replayablity. That's why Civ 2 was being played and still is played today, despite Civ 3's launch and Civ 4 drawing closer. And what can we learn from that? What we can learn is that accuracy in Civ isn't such a great idea, from an historic perspective. Sometimes you'll have games where people are scrabbling around in mud huts in 1200AD, sometimes you'll have games where people are nuking each other in 1200AD. Sure, it's cool to say "Hey, I've got the Printing Press in 40AD!" but it doesn't really mean anything - aside from anything else you can go into the editor and change the values with very little trouble, thereby rendering the entire point moot. You can start in 2500AD after a nuclear war, or you can start in 10000BC with alien technology giving you the Cure For Cancer.

No, I strongly feel the entire idea should be removed, and that it should simply be based on turns.

As for war changing the passage of time, well, that would make wars a central, focused thing with only one objective and one enemy. To me, that removes half the worry coming from the war, which is the dozens of other factors which apply and affect things.

I think time should still remain in cIV - I like the feeling that time pass.

How about making the different era's time dependent. This way you force the era's to last a minimum of time. You can still discover techs like future techs, which will add to your score and/or give you other bonuses (culture, ... ). The eras can still last longer, but techs of the next era will first be unlocked at a certain time.

This way you can first begin the Middles Ages at say 600 AD. If you finish the discoveries at say 1 AD you can discover future techs to improve score or maybe you will also gain other bonuses like culture (i know it will be scraped) or other stuff.

If one is really masochistic, then most techs should have a time, which will unlock them - even in the ancient era. And you wont be a able to acquire locked techs from goody huts. Btw I think, that acquisition of techs from goody huts should be very rare or even scraped.


I agree with you on this. The time is somewhat imbalanced. Maybe Movement along roads should be increased to adjust this. The cost should now be 1/5 or even less. Perhaps the cost of movement should be 1/10 on own roads, 1/5 on road owned by civ, which you have a RoP and 1/2 on enemy roads.
Some scens have done this but it only works if you play in real-time (or at the very least simultaneous turns) as otherwise, a fast enemy unit can drive way past you before you can do anything to stop him.

Yes, this should be implemented with the WE-GO system or other real-time system.

Aks K

@sir_schwick:

Battlegroups interacting via and operational radius is a good idea but is simply too sophisitacted fro Civ. Civ is x unit attempts to enter y unit's square, comabt occurs, one of the two wins (and in Civ3, if unit x wins it moves into the square automatically). That's it. I can imagine adding some basic tactics, like flanking (e.g. if x unit has rival units on opposite sides of it, it sufferes a 50% combat penalty) or something. Additionally, it changes the combat system too much so players have to learn it (not ehtat Firaxis reps. have made it clear that they will not deviate from the original format and that their goal is simplcity).

The thing I mentioned (i.e. unit moves auotmatically based on stance--a standard system in RTS) would keep with the original format in that it does not change the combat mechanism. It would basically function the same way the 'retreat' mechanism works in Civ3 (i.e. unit only moves in response to other unit's action. To simplify things, you could limit the auto-response to only adjacent units (i.e. unit only moves once only instead of taking a free shot it attempts to enter the other unit's square). This would do a bit for the time problem and be suited to both regualr and simlutaneous turn play (TBS being one of the hallmarks of the Civ franchise).


@Huxley Hobbes:

Think of the date the same as graphics: it's there to provide 'atmosphere;' it really serves no other purpose as scripting would be based on turns from turn=0, not a date).

I think we've established that the war changing the passage of time thing is just too complicated--WAY too complicated considering Firaxis's 'ultimatum' regarding the game's level of complexity. That only really works if you use a battle-view system a la CTP where units can move within a square so to speak).


@Aks K:

Making the era's time-dependent would limit the game's flexibility. Not a chance that will happen. BUT, Civ4 will supposedly use the Python scripting language so you can, if you want, do things like grant a tech only after x turn or on x turn or whatever other condition you can think of.


I think the main problem with time in Civ is that you can only do x in x # of turns (e.g. you either build a unit or a building between 900 AD and 950 AD). Again, I llok to RTS for the solution: multiple build slots/queues. If you do this, you can build multiple items simultaneously without having to limit yourself when there is only time to build 1 item. Not sure how production would be divided though.

Time passes good as is, in Civ. Why change something that works? Infact I've found the ancient ages drag on too long in some cases. Time vs. movement vs. production vs. tech is good the way it is.

My 0.019 cents worth

I could simplify the OR to mean, if two ORs overlap, it will be like the two units are in the same square. This now just makes sure units actually fight somebody instead of playing strategic checkers.

Oh, and the other problem (e.g. tech not corresponding to date) happens because you're too good and you take too much of the map thus allowing you to build a massive empire with a huge income tusallowing you to put plenty into research. I would say that the solution here is to give techs more attributes than just research cost (and age limitations in Civ3). Historically, things have not been s much researhced as they have been accidentally discovered and the dicovery applied differently based on the culture it is intorduced into. In Civ terms, that means random discoveries (within parameters like more research, military, trade, industry, etc. = greater chances at discovery) and different tech availability based on culture (so war-like culture will have lower research cost for militaristic techs).

Note that technically you can do this by modding Civ3: by giving all civs the scientific characteristic (gives free advances--can't remember if denominator it's based on research output or just completely random), free advance tech flag, scientific GL and goody huts and giving each civ a seperate branches in parts of the tech tree (e.g. two techs that give the same thing and have the same prerequisites but have different cost).

@sir_schwick: Sorry missed your post. Yeah, I see what you mean and it's essentially the same effect as what I said only without wasting processor time getting units to move around automaticaly mid-turn, but I doubt they'll change the system (they probably also want to keep the look the same--units moving square-to-square--whereas your OR idea implies combat but the units themselves don't move). Then again, with Firaxis' need to make the engine more efficient, perhaps they'll consider something along those lines (e.g. for Armies or something).

I think that time passes too quick even on "epic" timescale. I don´t like when new technologies are discovered before I even had the chance to fully implement the last technology. I like it when you are stuck with your stone-age-units for a long time and each new advance is a big event, a bit of a technological WONDER, something I need to fully implement in my civilization in the long waiting for any new technologies.

I know this snail-pace in technological evolution is not in everyone´s taste but why not include another speed-option: "grand epic", where the incremental time-steps even in ancient times are small, and technology comes at the pace of the "normal" time-steps? I hope i make myself clear... :)

Slower technology-pace means a more epic Civilization! :king: