A simple solution to "one sided games" : "Common Knowledge"

[Inkalu]

techs get progressively easier to research as they spread among civs

Technological evolution. But I would change it a bit with a concept called neighboring bonus (from Europa Universalis II). If players neighbor owns a tech which he doesn't own, the tech should be cheaper to aquire. With techs and wonders suchs as writing, map making, steam power, flight and internet more and more countires would receive neighboring bonus. The larger the technological gap between countries, the larger the neighboring bonus.

In addition if the more technological country trades with less developed countries, they should have a discount to all techs known by the tech-leader.

-Inkalu

 

[warpstorm]

Yes, this is already in Civ3 and works fairly well, I see no reason to change it.

 

[MeatWad]

How about The Internet advance becoming a modern Great Library? After it is researched give advance any 2 other Civs already have. It would be a great way to try to catch up in a lopsided game.

 

[ManOfMiracles]

By that point in the game the tech leader would build it just to keep it out of the hands of those who are behind.

I like the DyP mod where several different wonders give two free advances. It is unlikely one civ would get all of those wonders--especially if dead-end advances were required to build them or a blind tech tree was in use.

 

[MeatWad]

Sorry, I meant to also make Internet a small wonder, or even an improvement. No single CIV should benefit from it's effects. Say, like Stock Exchange, can be built after 5 cities have research lab? Internet has been around in some form since the 1960's, what we use is commercial application. MIT Univac, meet Berkley Univac. I also agree that by the time you can develop Internet, you've probably already lost to more advanced Civ.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I disagree. This won't really add much over the current progressive pricing scheme. In general, at the higher difficulties, the AI is outresearching you anyways so it would only serve to allow you to spend nothing on research and still gain the benefits of "common knowledge".

Need to get rid of you, I was going to say the same thing.

If you have something by which you will AUTOMATICALLY get the tech then what that'll do is promote "no-research" strategies. Imagine how much gold for upgrades/rushing you could accumulate while hitching a ride on your AI neighbors. *Shivers*

 

[Mewtarthio]

Interesting sidenote: The heavy corruption/waste topic is clearly an approch to penelize the players with really big empires, to allow smaller civs to stay closer. Ironically this feature is one of most bashed by a lot of players.

Corruption/Waste does not penalize players with really big empires. if you have a sizable empire, then you capture a few more cities, it will not injure the rest of your empire. The few cities you capture might be next to useless, but you're still churning out units and culture at the same rate.

 

[Coorae]

This idea would turn the strategy of tech researching, into a matter of knowing the percentages and constantly checking which civs got which techs, then calculating when you are going to get it for free.

 

[BobV]

I'm not sure how the RIAA will take to your idea Borg.

 

[dexters]

Instead of the knowledge being automatic after a certain # of civs get it, I would like to see the possibility that any civ may get an advance if they are in commercial contact with a civ that has it. The more civs, the higher the chance.

Thus: if you have a trade agreement with China and they have gunpowder, you might have a 5% chance each turn of getting that tech (not cumulative). For each other civ that has that tech that you have a trade agreement with, you would get an additional 5% added onto your chance (i.e. 10% each turn if two agreements, although only 5% per civilization).

Rather than a lottery system where I see a huge potential for abuse, what they could do if they decide to keey the same research/beaker/turns system is as noted, if you have many trades with many civs who have a technology buy you don't you get a certain % of ADDING BEAKERS to the not yet research tech, essentially moving you closer to getting it.

This is in addition to cost effects going down as a tech becomes widespread (a feature currently in Civ3) So what can potentially happen is you can decide to skip a tech and learn it many turns later after accumulated beakers. But the more tech you don't know, the more techs you could potentially learn, leading to the beakers being spread over many techs. Essentially a subsidy to those civs who are behind to get old techs relatively cheaply or for free.

 

[Teabeard]

I think if you border a technologically advanced civ then some of the technologies should become known to you over time. You don't get new techs instantly. I think you should learn them only after they have been known a long time. This way you can't just not do any research because if you don't do any research at all then you will be way behind. This is just a way of getting civs which are in bad shape more of a fighting chance.

For those who think this is unrealistic, look at history and how ideas spread across borders.

 

[mortalmadman]

I don't know. Maybe 75%. Or maybe it just seems like a bad idea. But it wouldn't be the world without super powers and super weak powers. But what if you don't know the other countent. Would you need to know them to spread the common knowlage? Sorry, I don't like it.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, this is why bonuses to researching 'known techs' should ONLY apply to techs known by civs you actually have direct contact with-primarily via trade. Even then, the bonus should apply more to things like cultural/sociological techs than to military or industrial techs.

 

[Gato Loco]

What's wrong with the corruption system? Your core cities stay productive, after all, and you still get a few benefits (special resources, free unit support) from capturing cities on the other side of the globe. Seems realistic, too. How much gpt and spt is Baghdad producing for us anyway? As I remember, eliminating corruption in civ2 for modern governments made it way too easy to warmonger.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Corruption is meant to deter warmongers, but it fails.

Corruption simply dimishes the returns for attacking and conquering a civ - rather than prevening players from doing so, it just means that they have less incentive to. However, more support, elimination of enemies and the achievement of certain victory conditions are all assisted by taking out your neighbors.

What's necessary is a way to actually deter players from expanding, rather than simply rewarding them less.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In which case, things like operational range would be much more effective at deterring war-mongering, as you have a real limit to just how far and how rapidly your forces can travel into enemy held territory. OR (along with harsher terrain-based movement restrictions) also works well to reduce over-expansionism as it limits how far from home your settlers can travel before they will need to find a place to settle down! All of this could be done WITHOUT corruption!
As I have pointed out in other threads, I feel that it would be more appropriate to have corruption apply to older, larger and more developed cities-as that seems to be what happens in real life!! Small distant cities, OTOH, would suffer more from a certain degree of 'lawlessness' at first, but that would mostly effect happiness if it is not dealt with early on!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lennon]

There should also be more ways to battle corruption. As it is now, there are a couple of improvements and then the different governments, nothing more. You can't really decide to put emphasis on reducing corruption (and then probably sacrifice other things). I also think that it'd be better if bad corruption from early on should be more difficult to combat, since it'd kinda 'grow' on the civ in question. Or something along those lines...

 

[Jon Shafer]

That's the idea... if you're able to reduce corruption significantly, then there's no reason to have it in the game in the first place!

 

[Lennon]

Well, that's if you see corrution as the sole possible staller of expansion. If you don't, my ideas are very interesting.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Well, that's what corruption is for in Civ 3.

Personally, I'd prefer to see the whole thing tossed and replaced with something better.