Does more technology mean greater strategy? I certianly dont think this is the only component of strategy, but to my way of thinking a bigger tech tree does provide more strategy. You cant research them all, so you must make choices as to how you are going to prioritise. What do you think?
Does >Technology = >Strategy?
- Thread starter CivMyWay
- Start date
potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
No. If you have a lot of technologies then each technology won't carry much significance so each choice doesn't matter much. Once you reach a certain point additional technologies no longer improves the game; they just make it more tedious.
More paths might mean more strategy but they have to be balanced and there has to be a big difference between the different paths.
More paths might mean more strategy but they have to be balanced and there has to be a big difference between the different paths.
I think CivMyWay is suggesting more techs, but optional ones. So t wouldn't make the game more tedious, unless you researched all of them, which is what you wouldn't be meant to do, I think.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,302
I think there is in Civ4 enough technologies. Unless you want possible specializations, like in the game Alpha Centauri. You could have very different civs, each with its set of technologies. Unfortunatelly, this is not the way civs work in reality. They pretty exchange everything, so they tend to be the same technologically. That is indeed a true limitation to the Man to be better in copying things that he is in inventing new things.
Gameplay wise, there is still in Civ4 many "useless" technologies. I mean, the better tech to discover first in multiplayer is Bronze Working, after that you can head for construction. Last MP game i built buildings in my cities, instead of catapults, and i have been wiped out by another civ that went straight for the told path and built catapults that i couldn't counter.
Gameplay wise, there is still in Civ4 many "useless" technologies. I mean, the better tech to discover first in multiplayer is Bronze Working, after that you can head for construction. Last MP game i built buildings in my cities, instead of catapults, and i have been wiped out by another civ that went straight for the told path and built catapults that i couldn't counter.
Interesting thoughts. Certainly game balance is important; but I think maybe people are too worried about it, in general.
Let's assume that food is tradeable...
For example, you could decide to research more food production methods, at the expense of military. You could then use your additional food to expand your population, or buy protection from other civs. (Though some countries don't have the latest and greatest military might - i.e. think China 20 years ago; their population would still enable them to overwhelm more high-tech but smaller countries).
Let's assume that food is tradeable...
For example, you could decide to research more food production methods, at the expense of military. You could then use your additional food to expand your population, or buy protection from other civs. (Though some countries don't have the latest and greatest military might - i.e. think China 20 years ago; their population would still enable them to overwhelm more high-tech but smaller countries).
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,302
Buy protection? I say yes! I definitetely think that alliances should be possible at the start of the game. (especially if all goody huts are replaced with civs) that would make the game more easy at greater difficulty levels, and more realist. Why merging civs should be the apanage of modern eras?
I think that increasing specialisation of civiliations would have to come hand in hand with an increase in the number of civilizations in an actual game. In a game with, say, 8 civs, it would be very difficult to have a civ that specialises in culture, one that specialises in mercenaries, etc. But in a massive game, with 25+ civs, you could have this.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 4,302
I think a greater number of civs would be needed for a whole range of possibilities, like rebellions. Let's say you absorb a civ/city at start, later on it could rebel.
That's why I advocate more complex supply mechanics ... it will be very draining on a civ to have SoD too far out of their own "established" territory.
I also think a really large SoD should have it as a negative - history repetitively shows that a giant army lacks the mobility and flexibility of a smaller force.
I like supply chains better. If you amass a SoD be prepared for it to drain resources. (Even if there was no supply chain, maybe there should be a SoD food/corruption penalty).
Also, the flexibility of a large army should be a factor regardless of where they are - a large army is just as unweidly in friendly terrain as in enemy terrain. (I dont know how it is done atm, but is the unit slowed to the speed of the slowest?)
Also, I am not saying this should be a very large disadvantage - SoDs are more representive of real-war than having a player who purposely keeps units split up to avoid the penalty.
I like the supply chain idea as well, as long as it is an automatic trade route type thing, that you just have to protect, instead of actual units that form a chain. That would just be too tedious to manage, whilst maintaining enjoyability. And after all, these ideas are to make the game more enjoyable.
I disagree. I don't think there are enough technologies in Civ4 by a factor of 4 or 5; what's missing, really, is a way of balancing tech paths so that there are different paths through the tech tree which are beneficial in different ways. Different civs having different specific technologies is a simple wrong solution to this.
For ecample, imagine there's one path down which you can get to horseback riding early. Someone else can get to catapults early, but that's of limited use if the stack of catapults they drag to your city can be trivially taken out by your horsemen; and if they want defensive units good enough to protect the catapults, by the time they get that and catapults, you'll have got to heavy horsemen or knights or some other direction that helps you defend better again. Or if bribery comes back into the game you could have built lots of marketplaces and bazaars and what not and be enough richer than the invader to bribe every barbarian on the continet to come defend you, or bribe the enemy's defensive units to trash the catapults for you. Or if my notion aboiut cultural conversions were implemented, you could go in a diffferent direction again and make your culture so goshdarn awesome that the catapults sitting outside your walls would go "Hey, we really should be working for these guys" and defect to your side.
I don't want mechanisms like supply chains that are dealing with the problem of SoD by making SoDs harder; I want genuinely different strategies that allow you to overcome SoDs by ways other than confronting their strengths.
supply units, a weaker defeats a stronger force by raiding the supply units of the invader.
