How bad is the expansion tech penalty?
- Thread starter Ornen
- Start date
blizzrd
Micromanager
Does Rome win? Because with that rule, I expect that a human player could probably launch a spaceship by 1000AD
SheaferDaDawg
Intelligent Canine
The only thing that I don't get is why, if we are trying to let the AI catch up, penalizing the human player at all, or any player for that matter. Why not just reduce tech costs for those already discovered? Am I missing something here?
NorwegianSalmon
Warlord
- Joined
- May 22, 2013
- Messages
- 151
Many things in the game happen based on specific dates. For example nearly every civilization's spawn date. America would not be much fun if Future Tech was reached in 1700.
blizzrd
Micromanager
No, I recently made exactly the same point as you make. Unfortunately Leoreth is still looking at going down the penalty path.
blizzrd
Micromanager
That is why a 1700AD scenario is important, to allow repeatable starts for late-spawning civs.
blizzrd
Micromanager
The mechanic of discounting techs that have already been researched already exists, you are choosing to ignore this aspect Leoreth, which is just cheeky on your part.
The suggestion remains that the discount for techs already learnt could be adjusted to further assist the backwards (e.g. AI) civs, rather than penalising the human player for playing well.
The suggestion remains that the discount for techs already learnt could be adjusted to further assist the backwards (e.g. AI) civs, rather than penalising the human player for playing well.
It's just not very relevant. I tend to ignore things that aren't relevant.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Honestly, I think this would be most unfair to civilizations with small stability maps.
It's going to be nuts to try winning Domination/Space with Corea or Maya if this were going to be implemented.
Ornen
King
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2006
- Messages
- 648
One thing to consider might be reducing the penalty for each additional city, rather than upping the number of 'free' cities each civ gets. At least part of the problem right now is how preferable it is to game the 10-city limit, building very selectively beyond that. Maybe something like a 6% penalty would work, or a 4% penalty starting after eight cities, or, if possible, a penalty that steadily grows. starting very small around eight or ten cities but reaching the full 10% per city after 15 or so.
Just a thought. In any case, I like the historical areas fix, because it enables a civ like Russia to fill out its historical area without suffering too much. Another option, if possible, might be to consider core cities as 'free', and have other historical or contested areas grant a much smaller penalty than cities in foreign areas.
Just a thought. In any case, I like the historical areas fix, because it enables a civ like Russia to fill out its historical area without suffering too much. Another option, if possible, might be to consider core cities as 'free', and have other historical or contested areas grant a much smaller penalty than cities in foreign areas.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Get rid of the steadily increasing penalty rate, and instead:
4% flat penalty per city after the 8th. Then I'm golden.
Your idea is possibly the most reasonable so far though, I like that.
blizzrd
Micromanager
Relevant to what? You don't make sense by leaving the context out.
I will draw an analogy to the arcade game, Daytona. Stay with me.
When two players join the same race in Daytona, the game system "cheats" and causes the driver coming 2nd to catch up to the leader, even if their speed shown on the top of the screen is less than the leader's speed. In this way, the leader is not penalised for good driving, but is challenged by the chasing driver.
The same could apply to CivIV DoC. The tech leader would still progress just as they always could, but the AI civs would be better incentivised to catch up the difference in techs and any lead gained would soon be narrowed.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
The same mechanic is used in Mario Kart as well.
Actually, most racing games I can think of (specifically arcade-style racers) like SEGA Rally Championship and Ridge Racer feature similar "catch-up" mechanics.
Addressing situations like Russia was exactly the intent (and other stuff like the mandatory golden triangle in North America).
I would've liked to take core areas into consideration as well, but these are available from Python only and calling Python functions from the DLL is too time-consuming for a calculation that's done as often as this one.
The context is supplied by the things I have already said in this thread. But everyone always changes the subject in what they think needs to be addressed or not that it seems that I always have to repeat myself.
I think it's also a problem when individual players (AI or not) tech too fast for the game date. Which is why increasing the follow-up civ's tech speed is not a solution, but only exacerbates the problem.
I thought that was clear because it seemed like you tried to address this problem by bringing up the 1700 AD scenario. To which I replied that scenarios in which we have an accurate tech level are no solution to the problem that we currently have a flawed mechanic for producing the same outcome from a developing game.
(Which does not mean that I want to completely prevent the player from teching away from the AI.)
blizzrd
Micromanager
1700AD scenario is a separate point, which is why I put it in a separate post. America is NOT fun to play when you spawn and one euro civ has gone nuts and already has Modern Era techs.
Tomorrow's Dawn
Heroes Never Die
Problem is, Russia is in a sweet spot right now.
It's pretty much the only civ that techs at its own historical rate and doesn't have issues with being overpowered (like England & China) or underpowered.
Not at all, and all the complaints about Peter not appearing at all prove it. I've had numerous American starts where Russia was researching Printing Press or Replaceable Parts or something ridiculous like that.
Similar threads
