Commander Gorma
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 125
Orders in
The idea is a problem for me.
My reason for this view-point is based on my previous experience in both NESes I have played in and moderated. I myself have abused the tech system considerably in some NESes and was able to project myself into a solid lead by spamming PMs to various players and ensuring I was involved in any tech trade. By doing so I was able to achieve a solid lead in two NESes where I otherwise should not have been in a strong position (as the Amurites and as the Babylonians).
In my own experience as a moderator, players become frustrated if their new and shiniest toy is obsolete in 1 or 2 turns. If I get to navy 2, cutting edge for turn 3 lets say, and develop a new larger aircraft carrier (it could be anything) but next turn by working with a larger group I get navy 4, then I didnt really get to enjoy my design. Players need to feel that their new designs are not going to be obsolete inside of 2 or 3 turns or they simply wont invest in UUs.
Thirdly, I feel that by allowing rampant tech trading and technology coalitions, the game will progress much too quickly and between 1960 and 1970 we will see a complete absence of space programs develop into advanced manned bases on the moon, etc.
I would prefer to play in a game where my new navy 2 sub or aircraft carrier has a lifespan of more than one turn. And although some players no doubt want to have tech coalitions so they can race ahead in tech, ultimately I think they would have more fun if each tech level was more meaningful and ultimately enjoy the game more with reduced tech trading.
I think the problem with tech is not that you can share them; it's the worry that, if you research a new one, your old units or strategies may become obsolete too quickly. And I agree; that is something to be worried about.
If anyone has any easy fixes, or suggestions, I'll take them. Though I won't probably make any changes, if any need to be made until after this update.