Info on Next Patch
- Thread starter Rohili
- Start date
J. Hercules
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2010
- Messages
- 28
I'm pretty new to civ (I dabbled in cIV) so you will have to forgive my ignorance. Do they ever add things like new buildings or units in patches or will we have to wait for the x-pack for that? It seems like their pretty keen on adding new civs and tweaking existing buildings and units, but not so much adding new buildings and the like. I think adding something as simple as an aqueduct could really make a big difference in game play. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone with experience civ 1-4 patches could shed some light on this for me.
Snerk
Smeghead
Keep in mind that 2K Greg only said that he'd look in to what the devs' thoughts on research overflow was. The devs' may very well already have decided to include research overflow in the upcoming patch. Time will tell.
No.
New things previously were introduced by expansion packs. If this will happen for Civ5 is questionable.
Personally I expect them to issue a lot of DLC introducing such new elements, if at all.
Rusty Edge
Deity
I wish they'd adapt maritime city states to provide less food ( for better balance) and to gift the occaisional warship ( so that somebody besides me and the barbs would have any kind of navy ).
*insert facepalm smilie in here*
What there is to discuss here ? What possible reason with a modicum of validity can be brought do defend the lack of tech overflow ?
If they are not going to adjust the tech costs (i.e., make them much more expensive), then they should NOT consider simply allowing tech carryover. I thought we were all clear on that?
Beef Hammer
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 255
Yes having extra tech just "carry over" seems dumb. Not realistic that's for sure, "hey i invented this light bulb, and had enough tech left over to research the televison right away!" see, seems real dumb...
obviously this isn't "Civ, The Most Realistic Game Ever" but just having tech carry over would be the lazy way to approach this problem, imo.
just saw this
obviously this isn't "Civ, The Most Realistic Game Ever" but just having tech carry over would be the lazy way to approach this problem, imo.
just saw this
Real life does not progress in turns.Yes having extra tech just "carry over" seems dumb. Not realistic that's for sure, "hey i invented this light bulb, and had enough tech left over to research the televison right away!" see, seems real dumb...
obviously this isn't "Civ, The Most Realistic Game Ever" but just having tech carry over would be the lazy way to approach this problem, imo.
just saw this
This confuses to distinct issues. It is doubtful that the absence of tech overflow is a design decision to make teching more "expensive". If so, why not just scale up tech costs in the first place?
Meanwhile, tech wastage can be minimized through annoying MM. Reduced overall tech costs are realizable in the game as it is now.
Annoying MM - THAT is the issue. Balancing tech speed costs should be dealt with SEPARATELY.
Meanwhile, tech wastage can be minimized through annoying MM. Reduced overall tech costs are realizable in the game as it is now.
Annoying MM - THAT is the issue. Balancing tech speed costs should be dealt with SEPARATELY.
The Tollan
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 418
Maritime city states will be reduced in power in this upcoming patch. Hopefully the change will in some way make it so that you do not get much more or any more food from having more cities. Thus if one has a larger civilization it would be necessary to acquire more maritime city state allies to get an equally large relative boost as would a smaller civilization.
Morningcalm
Keeper of Records
It's a good suggestion to have maritime CSes gift ships. Currently there's very little that's maritime about the CSes. Many of them when they pop up on my maps don't have Pearls or Fish or suchlike, and few of them make naval units (most prefer to just use ranged units and cities to snipe barbarian galleys).
They might as well rename Maritime CSes to "Cornucopia CSes" since that's how they work at present, and I suspect even post-patch they'll continue to work that way, considering how useless farms are relative to trading posts. Why don't Golden Ages make farms produce extra science? Or gold? Or SOMETHING. -_-
They might as well rename Maritime CSes to "Cornucopia CSes" since that's how they work at present, and I suspect even post-patch they'll continue to work that way, considering how useless farms are relative to trading posts. Why don't Golden Ages make farms produce extra science? Or gold? Or SOMETHING. -_-
QueenElizabeth
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 33
If you want to talk about "realistic" - a turn is often several years, even decades.
The light bulb would be invented during the period, leaving plenty of time to get started on next technology.
To put it another way, do you think it is "realistic", say, that if the civ is producing 120 beakers a turn but needs only 20 to complete a tech that the scientists finish up the job in February and take the rest of the year off?
blind biker
King
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2009
- Messages
- 609
I'll tell you why I think it is realistic, and then you can explain to me why you still disagree: what happens in Civilization, is that you have this pool of scientists and institutions, and you, as the supreme leader, steer their efforts in a certain direction. Every scientific discovery or technology requires a certain amount of scientific output. Let's say your empire has a scientific muscle capable of generating 1000 units of scientific output (here usually called "beakers", quite erroneously, as they are NOT beakers - just look up "beaker" in Wikipedia and see how a beaker looks like. But ok...) and say that you order your scientific force to research fusion, which requires 2500 units of scientific work. You will be able to research fusion in 3 turns, which, at this point in the game, corresponds to 3 years. So your scientists have been working for 2.5 years to research fusion, but what about the second half of the 3rd year? They coldn't have been idle. You are at the 3rd turn, and you, as the supreme leader, order your scientists to research quantum computers. The overflow science is nothing more than the remaining scientific work of your scientists for the current turn. When you order them to research quantum computers, which requires 4200 units, the scientists will continue working on that project, and that means including the CURRENT turn, in which they produce 500 units of scientific work - the remainder for the "current academic year".
I was going to try to explain this in another way, but I think the above should suffice. Let me know, however, if it's unclear, and I will try to explain.
Point is, the scientific "overflow" is no overflow at all - you just have the impression it's "overflow" because you imagine being at the end of the year ("turn"), while in reality you are at an indeterminate point somewhere between the beginning and the end of that year, and the "overflow" is simply the reminder of the scientist's work, which can be channeled in the desired direction, because the year is not over - you are overseeing that year from an arbitrary temporal point of view.
Baleur
Prince
In real research there are setbacks and dead ends that prove to be a huge waste of time, that could be "imagined" to be the rest of the year "off"..
Honestly, the best research system in terms of realism so far in game is in Sword of The Stars.
First off, its semi-random, when researching Lasers you might unlock better lasers next, or pulse lasers next.
Secondly, something ive never seen in any other game, the research itself can often go overbudget, no joke. Its not rare to see techs stretch to 110% or even 150% of the estimated completion date.
Also, altough much more rare, you can have a breakthrough, completing the research ahead of schedule.
And finally you can increase the research budget beyond the normal 100% rate or whatever, but the more extra money / effort you feed into the research staff, the more risks are involved..
Yes the estimated time of completion goes down, but the risks of fatal mistakes grow greatly, which can result in explosions or disasters killing millions of people (if say, trying to hurry the research of anti-matter, your scientists get careless and messes up the safety of the facility, if we're thinking beyond the numbers here).
LHC i'm looking at you.. Lol j/k
Very cool stuff, very unpredictable yet still keeping core techs and such reliable.
I was very surprised when that game came out and kept asking myself, "why the heck does a space game with lazers have more realistic research than the civilization games, which are based around building a civilization through the ages, not just building spaceships and blowing stuff up?"
All in all, im not really whining about realism in civ, just the research aspect as being a completely linear straight-to-gunpowder-plan is an incredibly ridiculous part of Civ which i hope it will mature away from, considering that space-pew-pew games have.
Simulating research has always been a problem. I mean, it's not like in the world the government says, "Let us work towards this magical technology called 'fusion' which will give us the 'atomic bomb'" It's more been "Hey, whoa, this fusion thingy can make things blow up" and then the government funds research into weaponizing it.
To model that in civ, you should have some research dedicated to new advances, and some dedicated to refining your current technologies. You'd probably need to have multiple levels of techs, so you'd discover fusion, then advanced fusion, then weaponized fusion, and so on. Maybe not all would give something, but they'd lead towards that.
The "general" research would not be directed. It would just basically randomly pop new techs. But for each tech, I guess you'd use your directed science to "drill down" into it to unlock the real secrets.
Honestly, that would be really cool to do. It'd be similar in a way to the blind research in SMAC. You say, "focus on military techs" and you'll develop a military tech, but you don't necessarily know what.
The problem is that it can feel like the game is out to get you. You'd tell it to get military techs and it would get all these cool guns, but no armor. Plus, it feels like science is then out of your control. It was fun sometimes, but not always.
To model that in civ, you should have some research dedicated to new advances, and some dedicated to refining your current technologies. You'd probably need to have multiple levels of techs, so you'd discover fusion, then advanced fusion, then weaponized fusion, and so on. Maybe not all would give something, but they'd lead towards that.
The "general" research would not be directed. It would just basically randomly pop new techs. But for each tech, I guess you'd use your directed science to "drill down" into it to unlock the real secrets.
Honestly, that would be really cool to do. It'd be similar in a way to the blind research in SMAC. You say, "focus on military techs" and you'll develop a military tech, but you don't necessarily know what.
The problem is that it can feel like the game is out to get you. You'd tell it to get military techs and it would get all these cool guns, but no armor. Plus, it feels like science is then out of your control. It was fun sometimes, but not always.
-PET-
Chieftain
Any ideas when this patch will be out?
Txurce
Deity
Nope. Nor do I expect my Knight to move an extra square because it's my UU. Or my opponent to have a name beyond "black" or "white." Chess isn't supposed to be immersive. But there is zero doubt - zero - that Sid Meier wants Civ to be immersive. Where immersiveness, complexity, and playability intersect on the fun chart is totally open for debate, of course.
Willowmound
Wordbug
Good post.
