City State looking for tech leader task

Rewarding beakers makes little sense. Think of it from the other end, what if I am so far ahead that I gain a lot of beakers, but don't actually discover a new tech? Why would they reward me for NOT discovering something?

I think the logical fix is to reward whoever discovers the most UNDISCOVERED techs. That gives the best of both worlds I feel. It rewards actually gaining techs, but doesn't allow someone to research horse riding and beat someone researching radio ( even though this situation should never really come about often if you are playing on a sufficient difficulty)

Yzman said:

Rewarding beakers makes little sense. Think of it from the other end, what if I am so far ahead that I gain a lot of beakers, but don't actually discover a new tech? Why would they reward me for NOT discovering something?

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100%. It just seems like the original poster was upset that his massive tech lead didn't get him the city state bonus, so he was venting. The city-state tech leader bonus is fine as is, gamewise and "simulation-wise". Tecnological "renaissances" are exciting eras when new discoveries are being made all the time, not when lab coats huddle behind closed doors .

Yzman said:

Rewarding beakers makes little sense. Think of it from the other end, what if I am so far ahead that I gain a lot of beakers, but don't actually discover a new tech? Why would they reward me for NOT discovering something?

Click to expand...

I don't agree with your reasoning. Which would you reward more at this time in Reality: Someone that is on the verge of Curing Cancer, or someone that "invents" a Polio Vaccine (again)?

It's a game, not reality. I don't think a quest that some civs have literally no chance to complete is good design. Not practically no chance, like being way behind in faith per turn, but literally no chance because the prerequisites are lacking.

Dralix said:

It's a game, not reality.

Click to expand...

The old "It's just a game" argument. However, in this case, the game is HEAVILY modeled on Reality, as is the case with most games creating a historical simulation. So it behooves the devs to, where possible, make their models mostly realistic. Especially when it wouldn't be that hard to create a realistic model, rather than one that is merely trying to artificially adjust game balance. Balancing is something better tweaked by the Difficulty setting.

If realism isn't a substantial priority in the design, simply change the setting from Historical to Fantasy, Alien, or hypothetical.

You know what's unrealistic? If I chop down enough trees, a hospital appears. Why don't I hear any complaints about that? Because, like every other game concept, its an abstraction. People only complain about the abstraction when they don't like the mechanic.

Dralix said:

You know what's unrealistic? If I chop down enough trees, a hospital appears.

Click to expand...

Eh? I suppose, if you delve into the matter
Trees --> Timber --> Lumber --> Construction
Sell off enough of the Timber/Lumber, and you can also afford to hire doctors and nurses that staff the Hospital that is built with the remaining lumber.

CaptainPatch said:

I don't agree with your reasoning. Which would you reward more at this time in Reality: Someone that is on the verge of Curing Cancer, or someone that "invents" a Polio Vaccine (again)?

Click to expand...

Why say you disagree with me after only quoting half of my post? The second part of it clearly acknowledges your concern.

CaptainPatch said:

I don't agree with your reasoning. Which would you reward more at this time in Reality: Someone that is on the verge of Curing Cancer, or someone that "invents" a Polio Vaccine (again)?

Click to expand...

Also, your reasoning is flawed. If we are trying to be realistic, then real science is not based on "beakers". Also, real science and discoveries don't have a counter. Meaning there is no way to know that someone is "on the verge" of discovering something, because it hasn't been discovered yet.

Even ignoring all of that it STILL doesn't negate your complaint. The late game techs cost WAY more than the early game techs. So hypothetically, you could get into a situation where I research SIGNIFICANTLY more beakers than another civ, but am not actually close to discovering anything.

Also what society only invents one thing at a time? Can have infantry without rifling? Etc.

There are many things in the game that aren't "realistic". So yes, the idea that its just a game is accurate. Everything in the game is an abstraction of real life, not a simulation of it.

That being said, my post on the top of this page which you half quoted and ignored the second half explains a good way to get around your complaint while still having it based on techs and not beakers.

Yzman said:

Why say you disagree with me after only quoting half of my post? The second part of it clearly acknowledges your concern.

Click to expand...

Because I also disagree withe the subsequent paragraph:
"I think the logical fix is to reward whoever discovers the most UNDISCOVERED techs. That gives the best of both worlds I feel. It rewards actually gaining techs, but doesn't allow someone to research horse riding and beat someone researching radio ( even though this situation should never really come about often if you are playing on a sufficient difficulty)"

The probable winner will pretty much always be the tech leader, because most players won't be starting research on any given tech until after he already started, may even have completed nearly every tech before the others have finished them. (That's just the outcome when a nation foregoes other things in order to focus on Science. A path that often yields big dividends.)

The aspect that later techs require more beakers than earlier techs mirrors Reality, actually. The later techs are significantly more _complex_ than earlier techs. For example, building the first Steam Locomotive WILL take more effort than developing the Steam Power that the Locomotive is derived from. That's pretty universal.

I agree that it's unrealistic to require the player to focus on researching ONE tech at a time. Militarily, we can have each city building a different unit. So why can't each city likewise work on different techs? The effect would be that each of those different techs resolve distinctly more slowly than if there was just one basket everybody put their eggs in. But multiple projects IS more realistic, and the player _should_ have the option to go that route.

CaptainPatch said:

The old "It's just a game" argument. However, in this case, the game is HEAVILY modeled on Reality, as is the case with most games creating a historical simulation. So it behooves the devs to, where possible, make their models mostly realistic. Especially when it wouldn't be that hard to create a realistic model, rather than one that is merely trying to artificially adjust game balance. Balancing is something better tweaked by the Difficulty setting.

If realism isn't a substantial priority in the design, simply change the setting from Historical to Fantasy, Alien, or hypothetical.

Click to expand...

Civ is a strategy game, its not a simulation. You could argue that COD is heavily modeled on reality. So why when you get shot do you not just die like any normal soldier would? Because it makes for a poorer and more boring game.

It sounds as though you are being pedantic.

I am often the tech leader late game yet have often won this challenge.

And, once I start bulbing Great Scientists, it is a piece of cake.

I have no problem with this challenge, even when someone else wins it.

sherbz said:

Civ is a strategy game, its not a simulation.

Click to expand...

If the emphasis is on "strategy" and "game", then there would be absolutely no requirement that it be predicated on actual History. The Historical foundation implies that it mirror Reality to a substantial degree. Otherwise, why choose the Historical framework? Making elements realistic where _easily_ possible would make what transpires much more meaningful, as opposed to "It's _just_ a game."

It sounds as though you are being pedantic.

Click to expand...

Quite so. There are some few of us that prefer realism to artificial abstractions.

"If you prick us, do we not bleed?" William Shakespeare

You could say that Shakespeare's plays were just plays, involving fictional characters capering about to amuse the audience. Would abstracting their behavior for whatever reason make for a richer or poorer experience? Realism is what a person connects to when partaking of the endeavor. MUCH more so than "It's just a ____" production.

OP, I mean this in all seriousness ... you might want to check out Paradox games, such as Europa Universalis, or Victoria. They are much more complex, and have a much greater level of historical accuracy. That is their design.

To continue your Shakespeare analogy, I'd say don't read Jules Verne and then complain that the things in his stories aren't realistic.

Dralix said:

OP, I mean this in all seriousness ... you might want to check out Paradox games, such as Europa Universalis, or Victoria.

Click to expand...

[aside] I _have_ played several of those. What turned me off of those were those incessant Peasant Revolts. Waaaaayyyyyyy too many of them popping up -- always at inconvenient locations at the worst possible times. Peasant Revolts were actually fairly rare, uncommon at most. The Paradox games seem to think they should be happening somewhere, practically every turn.