Is it just me...

[Zerzes]

... or is science not given enough credit?

I'm a scientist and not a warmonger, and it really annoys me that I get nothing for it. One of the most successful strategies is to research (next to) nothing, fight like crazy, and trade science like mad. That is sooo cheap!

One of my wishes for civ3 was that scoring should be biased more towards what you have accomplished rather than how big empire you have. One example of that would be extra score for every advance you were first to discover.

Another wish I have is that there should be an option to turn off science trading.

In both cases you are more properly rewarded for creaming some cash into science.

Am I the only one who would love such features?

 

[Alexnm]

Funny. Civ3 was supposed to be more of a "builder" game. Hence the defensive advantages (enemies cannot use your roads/railroads), the wierd combat results (spearmen defeating cavalry, because it is supposed that the builder player will not upgrade his army so frequently, therefore he has to stand a chance against warmongerers), the possibility to achieve a "peaceful" win through culture.

But it seems that something went wrong. The builder player is not rewarded for his science investment, because superior technology does not give you real combat advantages (unless you have spearmen against tanks... ooops ). And given the way the AI civs trade techs amongst themselves, it is better to put all your money on taxes and buy techs from the AI instead of researching them yourself.

Interesting...

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Zerzes

One of my wishes for civ3 was that scoring should be biased more towards what you have accomplished rather than how big empire you have. One example of that would be extra score for every advance you were first to discover.

No offense intended, but why are you interested in score anyway? Personally, I'm more interested in winning the game than achieving a high score. Score is of little importance to me.

 

[Zerzes]

If you want to compare your game to others, score is just about the only way to do it. Look at GOTM for example...

Secondly, but this applies mostly to civ2 I guess, when you know from the beginning that you will win you need something else to strive for. Since it was way too boring to go for a high score in civ2, I put up all kinds of personal goals, like trying to research all techs as quickly as possible or only allowing myself to play with 10 cities etc. But in the end it is only the "official" scoring that counts...

But now we are getting off topic. Even if score is schmungus I feel that scientists should be better rewarded. Not allowing any science trade should really do wonders for the gameplay. Then you just can't wage war like crazy all through history and buy all your city improvements without suffering for it.

 

[akinkhoo]

you can reduce the chances of AI trading in the editor
but currently science superiority route do sux.
and I hate it, considering science is my favourite 'erm thing'.

really, the power of science is greater reduced in the game,
for balancing maybe, but notice that city count increase science by too much!
the improvement should really do more! this is stupid!
look at japan, it is not the biggest but it is 2nd to technology!

science really develop well if the right infrastucture were present. without education, university and research labs, and only raw population.
I can't see any computer/walkman/airplanes today.

certainly I will try to make a new "realism mod".
compare to the current/default "balance mod"...
stay tuned!