Privatized Research

I can think of many aspects where the civ series in general is very unrealistic, at least on the domestic side of things. I have a couple of ideas on how to improve this realism, but I am still struggling with how to implement some of them (they involve representing EVERY citizen, not just displaying 1 face to represent several thousand ppl, etc, so computer speed and user desire to micro-manage are some major limitations). However, I was just walking back from McDonalds and I thought of a way to revamp the science aspect of Civilization.

In real life, the gov. doesn't decree "Ok, all scientists have to research sanitation now, because that's what we want to improve next!" Rather, the government provides economic incentives, through grants, to research various technologies that will improve its stance militarily, socially, etc. My idea is to have, somewhere in the early-middle of the tech tree, the "Privatized Research" advance. This advance would release government control of scientific research, but would allow the player to put "grant money" out on specific technological advances he wanted to encourage his scientific community to pursue. All of the currently researchable technologies would be displayed in the science advisor window, and the player would move a slider to designate how large the incentive grant is for that technology. Each town would have a certain number of scientists, based on which city improvements the town contained: (ie:New York has no University and no Library? New York has no scientists and, therefore, produces no research.) One notable effect of this is that the monetary incentives effectively only guide research, not drive it so, the player could (assuming he had some scientists) put no grant incentives down and still have research conducted, however, it would be slow due to the fact that scientists are all researching different things. Another scenario: Tech1 takes twice the research time of Tech2. The player assigns 66 gold as an incentive to research Tech1 and 33 gold as an incentive to research Tech2. These technologies would finish at the exact same time!

The "privatized/regulated" status of research would be in full control of the player (similar to "Mobilization" in civ3) and the basic idea would be a tradeoff between cost and control. Tell me what y'all think about this!

OK, I agree with this idea, but more in the context of a more general 'private sector investment' model.
In this model, it is possible for a nations 'private sector' to either buy and/or build its own improvements in your cities. The rate at which this would occur would be based on the level of 'private sector influence' you allow.
Obviously, if the private sector owns its OWN research facilities, then it has the chance to do its own research. It can then offer the fruits of its research to you, in trade, or it can even offer it to rival civs-if it thinks it will get a better price for it!
Thats the 'joy' of having a private sector within the game-it brings an element of unpredictability into even your OWN nation! Reducing state control, within the game, should be a mixed-blessing, and should be the players choice!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I have to say, also, that the private sector economy is one of the MOST underrepresented elements of society in the Civ Series.
One way to rectify this is to have a Social Engineering trait of 'Private Sector Influence', or PSI, from 0-100%.
The higher you set this trait, the more wealthy, powerful and influential your private sector is. Of course, the more wealthy your private sector, the more money you get from them, through taxation.
The flip side of this, though, is that you also increase the chance of your 'private sector' coming to you and asking and, yes, even DEMANDING things from you.
For instance, if you have your PSI set to 65%, then there is a 65% chance each turn that you will be approached by your Private Sector. Things they can ask for are money, tax breaks and to buy/sell techs, resources and improvements. You can also go to them, at any time, to ask them for things-or give things to them. As an example, lets say that you have a whole heap of factories that cost you more than you feel they are currently worth. The 'private sector' comes to you and offers you money for them. Not only do you get an instant cash injection, but now you also don't have to pay maintainance for them-thus freeing up cash for other things. Where things get interesting is that you lose control of any shields that those factories produced-shields that the Private Sector can either sell back to you or use for their own 'nefarious purposes' . An interesting scenario might be the private sector building a unit, like a worker, and using that worker to 'Prospect' for resources. They could also use purchased or built research facilities to discover new techs. In both cases they could trade them either to you or with another Civ!
What I like about this whole idea is that it gives you an uncontrolled element within the game. The other civs are, to some degree, a known quantity-the private sector of your civ and every other civ, on the other hand, is almost a complete mystery! Depending on their degree of influence, your private sector could enter into trade deals with other nations, or those nations private sectors, and foreign Private Sectors could approach you with trade deals completely seperate from their parent nation. Theoretically, even if you were hostile towards a civs government, it wouldn't prevent that nations private sector from approaching you!
Anyway, this is really just the bare bones of my idea but, if people are interested, I'd be more than happy to spell it out in more detail for you.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Right, guiding science should do the trick. In the beginning of the 20th century, all kinds of instutions wrote out contests. For instance; the first person who flies over the Canal gets an x amount of gold.
Some leaders had scientists in their court, like DaVinci, that would be nice too, not sure how to implent this though

Sounds a lot like Private Sectors are little subnations that you can't invade, but you can buy techs from, if they develope a tech you don't have.

Along a similar line, under the current science model, when switching research/science goal either ...
1. Research on previous goal is not lost OR
2. Research on previous goal is lost 10% per turn
But I like your incentive idea even better!!

Brilliant idea. When you take a look at the tech tree, try to think how many of the technologies were developed exlusively by the government, and you'll realize just how much more realistic this would make the game. Overall gameplay would remain rather similar, but realism is a crucial element to many players such as myself.

Awful idea, kokoloko. First, I'd like to say that I'm against pursuing realism in Civ4 at the expense of gameplay. If you haven't already, you should read "Less Realism", which was started by warpstorm. It may be dead, but most of the views expressed are still good, IMHO.

Your idea adds little substantial improvement to the research concept in Civ. IRL in the United States, all libraries, most universities, and nearly all research labs were built and maintained by the government. I also believe it's the same for many other nations and their governments. Therefore Sid Meier represented this fairly accurately in Civ.

Research subsidies? You can already do this by adjusting your research slider.

Simultaneous research? That's no good when you can only choose among eight or so techs at a time (check the tech tree in the appropriate Civ game). Think of what it would do to exchanges with other tribes: no incentive to trade techs since you can research two or more techs at a time.

As usual, Aussie_Lurker, I think your idea stinks. (No personal offense. If someone asked me whether you were my twin, I would say, "Yeah, fraternal. Not.") Again, I'm against complicating Civ for the sake of realism.

Ok, that's really nice so much imagination and I got tell you that your ideas aren't stupid at all. But that would complicate the game so much, that it would be sold to too few persons and disapear soon.

The original idea is the fact that research shouldn't be that much conducted in one direction (tell me if I did'nt understood the wright way). To make it more realistic, there is my version. For example, you are in the Industrial Ages and discovered Steam Power. Actually, you can research either Nationalism, Industrialization, Electricity or Medecine, but have to choose ONE of them.

The actual concept is that a tech uses a certain amount of science (lets say points) to be discovered. You produce a certain number of point, which make the number of turns needed to discover a tech. The number of points you produce should be shown in the tech tree.

The techs you can research for are shown in some yellow. For each of them, you should be able to allow a certain number of points, which you can change every turns. And if you stop a research, the points allowded in the past are lost is there is 0 when you finish the turn.

So, you are able to search numerous techs at a time; you can discover 2 or more techs during the same turn; you can discover techs in consecutive turns or the gap between two discoveries will be shorter. By doing so, you can produce a scientific leader (like it actually does in Conquest).

Turning science and economy into private is an excellent idea for realism, but do remember that Civilization is a global game. There are specific games in which you can developp an economy of a science system. So imagine Civ with all this ...

a private sector certainly adds decision making to the game but does not have to lengthen the game or add micromanaging. consider the idea suggested about about private sector "workers" prospecting for resources. these workers would be out of the control of the micromanaging player so they would actually free up the player from some of his unit-pushing. also as private sector elements trade with each other they require no intervention from the player so this requires none of his time.

now lets look at history. we have an empire like the soviet union which had the benefits to its military as well as war production of micromanaging. compare it to the west which was wealthier and could afford a larger military but had ...SMALLER militaries! the payoff was a richer civilization with a smaller warmaking potential, at least in theory. now this isnt meant to be a political thread on which system is "better". in the game we want both systems to have their advantages and disadvantages to improve gameplay options. small- or zero- private sector strategies might be prefered by the person who wants a quick war blitz strategy. it would produce a more directed technology strategy and faster military buildup but at the same time it would lead to a stagnation of economic development that ultimately would cause the civilization to fall behind. basically lets just say that the centralized economy needs to make fast military gains against his economic rival

lets look at a few systems:

communism made its most impressive gains through warmaking potential. much technology had to be acquired through espionage but it had its day in the sun.

religious civilizations. look at the islam world today or the catholic church of the middle ages. the civ equivalent was that these civs both had a lot of religious "culture" and culture-flipped a lot a territory through that culture. dare i say it would be interesting if culture-flipping played a more pronounced role in civ

capitalist nations did not necessarily make good military gains since their populations had a way of demanding that their governments give the conquests back but they got rich and got way ahead in technology. this led to long term benefits. and the capitalist nations used the strategy that doesnt really exist in civ but is suggested in this thread: that they give up much of the control of the economy to a self-interested private sector that produces according to its own agenda and resists war conquests, gets technology according to its own agenda but given enough time gets so far ahead technologically that even its military pulls ahead.

a little history. the united states had a higher standard of living than england on the eve of the revolutionary war - yet its war-making potential was much smaller. had england won the war the conclusion civ-wise would be it doesnt matter if your population is affluent if you lose the war. but the U.S. pulled through and after a hundred years (civil war times) its war technology had surpassed that of europe as well.

i for one would enjoy playing a capitalistic civ. imagine a population that insists on building cars while the communist rival is building tanks and artillery. others would enjoy playing a central economy building a huge military hoping to conquer the rich countries. but watch out! the central economy better hurry up and win its wars. because culture is either religious (my examples of islam and catholicism) or scientific (us/western europe) and if your culture gets too far behind while getting ready for your war you could have eastern europe defect on you too

but i digress. this thread is about capalism. the whole premise above is that in a capitalist society you lose control of your population and they seek their own agenda. your workers do what THEY want to do and your cities produce what THEY want to produce. some wont have the stomach to see their cities producing the "hollywood" wonder when what they really wish what it would produce is "universal conscription". some will try to compromise and have a "socialist" government where they maintain *some* control of production and the 'people' produce only *some* of their own agenda. ok you got a compromise. maybe your socialist government will win. after all japan almost pulled off a serious territorial expansion. so did germany. both were mixes of capitalistic and socialistic economic systems.

but what i might like most about the capitalistic system in the game is i dont get to do much micromanaging .. and i can live with that

and im sorry about falling off topic so much. oh well .. i got it back on topic in the end . sort of

Ok, so you research a tech that effectively hamstrings your ability to directly control your tech research? No thanks. Whyever would anyone want to research that tech?

I think you raise a good point about privatized research and having a private sector altogether. For a game that lets you have democracy, you sure as heck have no problem playing like a Fascist. What's the point?

But a lot of people don't want to lose that kind of control over the game.

Maybe there's a middle ground?

Way I see it, we could simply say that democratic style governments don't get to choose what tech they research next, whereas autocratic ones do. Or have some kind of sliding scale so that the freer the people, the less control you have over the next tech to research.

If we adopt teh civ2 model where each theoretically available tech had a (50%) chance of appearing in the next to research list, maybe democracy knocks that to 10% (min1) and communism to 70%.

Privatized reasearch sounds cool. As you said, nations dont go ok scientists research nationalism.

the thing is, as i always wonder, in the game the player is not merely the government. he is endowed with powers unattainable by any state, modern or ancient. indeed, he is the embodiment of a civilisation; the nation itself does not exist independently of the player, except in times of disorder...

How about making the scientists the scientists in your cities simple AIs that start out doing what exactly what you tell them but over time develop personalities of their own. Soon they suggest developments of their own. And their attitudes reflect the situation of your city. This enables rogue scientists if your city is in civil disorder. I don't know. What do you think?

It could work, Goldenerasuburb. What I have suggested in previous posts is that your nation consists of Factions, with each faction having its own agenda. Within this system, your science faction may do what you say at first but, as your society becomes more technological, the more powerful your science faction becomes and, therefore, the more they are able to PUSH their own agenda-especially in more democratic nations. This applies not only to what techs get researched, but even what improvements and foreign relationships you have. The only way to reduce this factions influence on your society, is by reducing the number of scientists and scientific improvements-and I am SURE you can see the problem there !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Here are my suggestions:

Tradeperor said:

V. Science

A. Education and Scientific Progress
The education level (or literacy rate) of the population will play a central role in scientific progress. For the sake of simplicity, the Civ method of having beakers accumulate to create a scientific advance will be used; the beakers will not be generated from trade, however, rather from the collective level of education in the civ, enhanced by facilities such as libraries, universities, and research labs.

B. Trade and Scientific Progress
Trading with another civ that knows of an advance being researched will contribute beakers toward the discovery of that particular advance. Trade with another civ that is more scientifically advanced in a category being researched would also contribute beakers toward the discovery of an advance in that particular category, although to a lesser degree than in the above situation with a specific advance.

C. Research Facilities
Although an uneducated citizen will still generate 1 beaker, a Library will increase the per person output of the city the Library is in by 1 beaker, and the other facilities will have the same effect on the beaker output per person. The maximum number of beakers a single citizen can contribute (under normal circumstances) is 4 beakers. Scientific wonders and special funding can change this number.

D. Research Direction
When harnessing the beakers of uneducated citizens, the research goal may only be set as a category, and a random available tech in that category will be researched. Beakers from a Library can be directed toward a specific goal, however, and a University can also receive research funding from the central government to speed scientific discovery. The most advanced facility, the Research Lab, allows Researcher specialists to be assigned to the facility to enhance the Research Lab’s effects.

Click to expand...

Note that one essential Civ assumption eliminated is that trade is no longer assumed to automatically generate science, but trading with other civs that in fact do have relevant knowledge will help. Even so, devoting more funds to research will still help--but only if the correct facilities are available to spend those funds productively.

The UET II research idea is somewhat of a compromise between many ideas presented so far in this thread. The player can choose what to discover--but only if he has the scientific infrastructure and organization. The player can choose to research more than one category or more than one technology at a time. The player can increase science, though only to a certain extent, through increased funding. The player can assert specific control over research, but "unorganized" beakers from the population can still contribute to advances that the player can only select the category for.

This model, which has the potential to change significantly over time as infrastructure and economic relationships change, could offer the uniformity of a single system but also the adaptability of several systems stringed together.

Its not really a matter of the private sector being unrepresented vs the public sector being represented.

In fact, even though you're called the leader, you don't represent any real functioning government. You decide when revolutions occur, how to develop culturally, who to go to war with. You aren't a government or a leader, you are the force behind the whole civilizaiton.

In reality, the problem is the game has to abstract everthing. First, it abstracts civilization into a player, against competing players. In real life, nobody can dictate which way a civilization develops (i dont think its 'unconscious' just that its driven by consensus and practicality). Revolutions happen as a response to social change. With building infrastructure, its not just private industry that builds, its individuals within the enitity of the civilzation, the abstraction forces the civilization to act as a unit, whether in revolution or building, ingoring the forces that make it up and individuals. It also abstracts governments into 'types' you choose between (and can switch between on whim), technologies into a discrete 'tree', happiness tied to food and entertainment. Breakthroughs aren't decided by either a button or a slider. Whether its public or private. And theyre facilitated by individual thought, not just funding.

For civilization to tackle these problems the game has to be completely rethought

That's why some people have been advocating a shift -- you represent many of the state and leadership entities, but not the entire force of your civilization. So, sometimes you have to whip your people into shape to cooperate with your vision (teaching two races in your empire to get along), or you need to find ways to lift people up so they can do things themselves (creating a foundation for a strong private sector). I actually think of this game as a lot more fun, as the game becomes as much about mastering your own people as it is mastering other players.