Hit a gharial, got a golden age, tons of free units!? WTF is this!?

[Toffer90]

No it wouldn't? That has never been the reason for different game speeds for me, and I expect most people. Game speed determines how granular the game experience is *in general*, and how long you play the same game for, unit speed being fixed is an artifact how how it is implemented. When making the game Firaxis had no choice but to keep unit movement the same, it is just a by product of the engine design not supporting fractional moves, not the purpose. To illustrate further: if this game *did* have fractional movement, do you think Firaxis would not have added different game speeds? The answer is obviously that they would have, if only because some people want to play a game that only takes a day, others want to play the same game for weeks.

It would completely break the tactical aspect balance between gamespeeds, this is a turn based game and it is not trivial to scale how many plots a unit may move a turn without changing the tactical aspect of war one bit.

With scaling:
Either a spearman should be able to move 20 plots per turn on blitz gamespeed to allow it 1 plot per turn on eternity; or eternity should only allow a spearman to move 1 plot per 20 turn to allow 1 plot per turn on blitz. This would be unrouted flatlands without features with movment penalties.

How could we preserve the balance of the tactical aspect between gamespeeds in a turn based game with such a scaling? No there's a very good reason not to mess with how far each unit can move as it is an essential part of the game that a unit can move exactly this and that far each turn regardless of what speed players want the game to progress at.

The whole point of the gamespeed options is to be able to do more with your units during the same amount of change in game situation (buildings built, units trained, techs discovered). So that you may move a your units 10 rounds more before a tech is discovered or another unit is trained.

 

[Harrier]

3 pages of posts I do not want to read them all at the moment (will read later, so if I repeat something already proposed - sorry).

I agree anarchy is a bore, if all you can do is move units - particularly if it is a long period and you are not at war. For me even 10 turns is to much with zero output.

So my suggestion is:

For the relevant civics (not all cause anarchy - as it should be).

1 turn with no building/research/income etc. Simulates the initial shock as the collapse happens.

After that a percentage reduction scaled to game speed and player level.

Building/research/income etc are resumed but at a smaller percentages. As mentioned above anarchy does not always effect the whole population.

This way the player can still build things, but at a slower speed, instead of just pressing next turn and yawning.

 

[Snofru1]

Can this fascinating discussion be moved to a separate thread as it is totally off-topic now?

BtW., great suggestion from Harrier.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I feel Harrier's suggestion is the same as Toffers. The difference is the 1 round total down time and that's a huge difference between gamespeeds so I'm thinking it's better to just do the 75% reduction in everything for the whole anarchy period.

 

[Harrier]

I feel Harrier's suggestion is the same as Toffers. The difference is the 1 round total down time and that's a huge difference between gamespeeds so I'm thinking it's better to just do the 75% reduction in everything for the whole anarchy period.

Having now read all the posts (3 pages) - I agree.

As for the one turn of anarchy I suggested - I meant one turn only, regardless of game speed (not scaled). Then the reduced production etc. number of turns scaled to game speed.

The other difference I alluded too, was instead of a flat 75%, maybe the percentage could be different for each difficulty level.

But Toffers solution is much easier.

 

[Thunderbrd]

As for the one turn of anarchy I suggested - I meant one turn only, regardless of game speed (not scaled). Then the reduced production etc. number of turns scaled to game speed.

I understand. What I said about the gamespeed difference for that one round is that one round is not equal from one gamespeed to the next. On Regular, one round would be equivalent to 10 rounds on Eternity, for example. So if we didn't scale even one round, we're introducing a lot of cause for variation in progression between gamespeeds. Therefore, while the idea sounds nice, and yes, it does, it creates too much variation I think.

 

[Raven Destroyer]

I agree, anything that influences Construction/Recruitment should scale as it would influence balancing on the various speeds, now it's true that the current Anarchy System Wouldn't be scalable because it'd lead to gameplay issues (I.E. Sitting there doing nothing for a LONG time on slower speeds),
I Do like the Idea Toffer and Harrier bring up, but at the same time Various Civics influence different ways, and some civics would more naturally Evolve into another while others clash, a Civic that would Evolve into the next would be Less devastating to the nation then something that goes radically different,

For Example, Coinage and Banking (Believe those are two monetary Civics), It'd be a logical step to go from the one to the other, while Barter and Coinage would be a bit more of a jump between the two,

also, It'd make sense that Different branches of Civics would have different effects, again also based on the previous point,
to keep the previous example, Coinage to Banking would be mostly Financial, so Commerce would be most hit by the change, but seeing it's a more gradual step, the hit would be less significant as most people wouldn't be affected,
but from Barter to Coinage, would be a bigger change as the State now needs to produce the Coinage, Distribute it, and make sure that everything works, and that will take a lot more time then switching from Coinage to Banking, thusly a small period of complete standstill followed by a malus that dissipates slowly over time (if possible not incremental but a random Decrease of the malus to simulate changes taking root or the hesitance to it)

Now, I do understand there are a lot of things that can and can't be done, this is my five cents to this concept/idea, and I hope it sparks creativity and further ideas and concepts