1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

On why Nigeria is more technologically advanced than Germany...

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Aristos, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    But who is random joe? It was craftsmen, merchants, and artists who invented things or philosophers and priests who tried to figure out the world around them. Scientists for science's sake is relatively recent. The Average Joe (or, at least, some kind of individual who specialized in something besides science) were the ones that came up with the greatest breakthroughs in Science. This isn't even counting non-technological techs that just developed naturally (no scientist invented Civil Service or Chivalry).
     
  2. usi

    usi Shogun

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
    BTW, I don't know why there's :lol: at the beginning of my previous post.
    It was just me clicking somewhere wrong - no offense intended.

    Nope.

    Research agreements require two or more civs to (1) exist close enough to meet, (2) be cooperative with one another, and (3) be rich enough.

    Did ancient Rome become so great at construction and engineering because it had such neighbors? Did Maya have great knowledge of astronomy because of its neighbors? Not at all. Thus my point (a civ's basic research speed should be irrelevant from its population size) is not represented by research agreements.

    Moreover, ancient Rome/Greece did not have a lot of people at first. If population were so important for science, Persia must have easily out-teched and conquered Greece and Rome. However, in reality, populous empire should suffer from high maintenance fees and (global/local) unhappiness, both of which can ultimately reduce its research speed.

    That is represented by Libraries etc hiring scientists.
    Axztecs having a lot of people did not succeed in creating great scieitists.

    That's like Germany talking to Nigeria, "Hello my friend. Do you want a Research Lab? I can make one for you if you pay me 2000 golds! I don't teach you techs to unlock it though." I think it's realistic, though it is currently not possible to do in ciV.

    As I said, if Nigeria had the techs to make Research Labs, it could have made it by itself and tried to sell it to others, rather than buying from others.
     
  3. attackfighter

    attackfighter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    Intellectual Elite HQ
    China's large population definately contributes to more than basic labour. For example they have thousands of kids training for the Olympics from age 6 or so, and as they age and their skills become more evident those that have natural talent continue their training and those that don't are weeded out. Not all people are equally as intelligent or skilled, the higher the population you have access to the more picky you can be.

    Also there's a ratio of trained/untrained labour necessary for a society to function. You can see the results of too many specialists in the West - basic services are more costly, massive immigration is required, many occupations are understaffed. A less populous country like Germany would simply be incapable of supporting the number of specialists that the USA does, it wouldn't matter how rich they were they'd have to increase their own population by importing labour in order to compete.

    And you might say "specialists are already represented in the game, so population science is redundant". But look at my first paragraph again: higher population/specialist ratio means higher standards for those specialists. A 1 population city in civ with all it's inhabitants working as scienctists in the local library would have to have low standards for their scientists, a 10 population city however could choose from the best and brightest. I have been saying it from page 1: higher population means larger pool of talent.

    Alternative method of converting gold to science: buy granary for more population, buy research lab, put that extra pop into scientist specialist. Could this not represent modern research funding?

    Okay, and ancient Greece, Maya, etc. didn't become advanced through wealth. Rome might've, idk, but my knowledge of Greece is that it was fairly poor and backwater in it's infancy. Technology level back in those days couldn't really be attributed to any singular concept like wealth or population... there were many factors such as geography, trade, war, migration, etc. that could effect a 'civs' tech. Attributing it to pop is just as innacurate as attributing it all to money, imo.

    see my reply to deep blue as well as my previous paragraph

    you are generalizing again, the reason Nigeria doesn't build advanced structures isn't necessarily because it lacks the knowledge but more likely because it's unnecessary and not viable due to the instability. and I may be a bit rusty of my sub-saharan african politics but I assume all of the governments there asides from South Africa are more interested in pocketing funds than building infrastructure.
     
  4. usi

    usi Shogun

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    Messages:
    239
    Location:
    Connecticut, USA
    I totally agree, and that's exactly my point.
    Neither population nor money itself should make a civ technologically advanced, while production and money from population, trade, etc can be used to unlock its people's potential.

    That's why I think we need maintenance fees and local (un)happiness back. Nigeria can't even concentrate on making scientific buildings partially because, in civ terms, (1) it's loosing money due to maintenance fees and (2) its government sucks (= low happiness).

    To clarify what I mean here and previous posts, let me summarize my model of "fixed" science model in ciV:

    Population - No science directly comes from population; however, when buildings like Libraries are built or when certain policies are adopted, more populous cities produce more science than less populous cities.

    Maintenance fees - An undeveloped city will be a drain on a civ's economy, rather than providing a scientific or economic boost. And if maintenance fees become so high that a civ can't pay for all the expenses, science suffers. For example, when Germany got reunified in 1990, the poorer East Germany brought a heavy economic damage, which might have slowed down Germany's research speed as well.

    Local happiness - Like in cIV, if a city is not locally happy enough, some of its citizens should refuse to work. And when a citizen doesn't work, s/he won't produce any science, production, etc.

    Warmongering - Conquering cities means no immediate science and immediate maintenance fees. To get science out of conquered cities, a player must build Libraries etc. To pay for the maintenance fees, the player must build Markets etc there or in somewhere else. However, doing so will slow down the war machine.

    ICS - Having more cities does not mean anything good for science, as buildings are needed unlock people's scienfitic potential. Rather, more cities = more maintenance fees, so ICS discourages scientific discoveries. Nevertheless, ICS can be good for handling local (un)happiness issues, as smaller cities require less buildings for happiness.

    EDIT:
    City specialization - Because maintenance fees are high, a player is encouraged to specialize cities, e.g., making a few great scientific cities rather than many so-so scieitific cities. Great cities like London can't be beaten by tens of insignificant cities combined.
     
  5. Honorable_Pawn

    Honorable_Pawn Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    153
    Absolutely.


    Here's another example why the sliders (oooooo...so much micromanagement...oooo....sliders are so much effort) were a god thing. Ok, I have been switching citizens to scientist and have been working cottages instead of hills for the last 24 turns beacuse I am tring to hurry up and get maceman or rifles or whatever.

    My production has suffered for the last 20 turns and my angry neighbor who has a monster army just declared war the same turn that I get rifles. I drop my science to 0 and accumulate gold. Switch my cities to production heavy and upgrade my units to rifles. Maybe a lose a couple of border cities while upgrading. Either way, I made a decision to weak production in an effort to get a technological advanatge. Once I got that lead I could adjustment my strategy (slider) to take advanatge of that edge.

    This is one of the many things that I have read on these boards that makes CIV V a sorry excuse for a strategy game. These kinds of "choices" (read micromanagement for you people that like the current installment) are absolutely necessary for immersion. Otherwise you might as well play a real RTS. It is obvious without ever having played it that this game is a weak turn based startegy and/or a weak RTS imitation wannabe in a turn based format.

    I don't need to play the game to see how weak it has become.
     
  6. Zen Blade

    Zen Blade Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    247
    If you want to relate population to science... you really need to also take into account the fraction of the population that is focused on subsistence living versus those who can do more.

    Subsistence is fine when inventing agriculture, husbandry, plantation, etc...
    But once you get to actual technology post CE1... You need a population that can focus on questions not germane to daily life.

    So, I too am not happy with people = beakers... not once you get to or beyond classical age. At that point, in order for people to count as beakers, there should probably be some requirement for library or university or ETC...

    AND each following age the requirement needs to grow.
    So, for example, in the earliest ages library would give a modifier, but in the medieval ages library becomes a requirement for people to produce beakers (specialists always can), while other buildings still give a modifier. However, in a later age the requirement might become a university or some other building... and so on.

    Really, most people in our society are not contributing to scientific advancement (aside from taxes). The percentage of people leading any sort of technological breakthrough is relatively small. We have 300 million people in the USA. How many of them are contributing to any (technological) advancement? The inventors of Facebook may be innovators, but they are not creating new technology... they are creating new ways to implement the technology. Granted, they have made a lot of money, and that money funds science... but to say that each user of Facebook is propelling science because of advertising revenue or playing facebook games... is a bit of a stretch.

    So, maybe the Civ5 system is setup as an extreme abstraction for all of the contributions a population makes to technological advancement... but that seems like a LOT OF BS to me. the reason being that a country with 1 million people can easily make far far greater contributions to technological innovation than a country with 100 million people.
    In Civ5 a civ with 100 million ppl will always out tech a civ with 1 million ppl. Maybe this last point is not technically true, but I think it is.


    EDIT: Actually, the more I think about this... the more I like having specific buildings being required for a player to gain the population = beakers bonus. This is very realistic. If we did not have universities (where most basic research takes place), we would not have very many technological breakthroughs. Universities are funded by the general population through taxes and donations and tuition and many other things...
     
  7. Alpedar

    Alpedar Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    What about:
    General changes
    all buildings except +food abd +happines stronger bonuses and higher maintenance,
    Even Marketplace would cost something in maintenance.
    Kill MCS

    Science changes (dont take my numbers seriusly)
    Pop (P) = beak (B)
    Library: P = 2B (instead of 1.5B), maintenance 3
    Univ +50% sci AND P = 3B (with that +50% its 4.5) maintenance 6
    etc..

    So specialized small science city or medium city have library,
    specialized medium or large have univ et cetera.

    And increase cost of techs per age more.

    Great scientist should give age based ammount of beakers (and do something, eg, limited lifetime or huge maintenance to prevent GP hoarding)


    This way large empire (ICS style) HAVE larger science income, than its smaller copy, BUT smaller but not too small empire with larger cities have better, and as time progress, larger cities start to dominate small ones, because of smaller ammount of expensive buildings that pays itself only big enough cities.
     
  8. attackfighter

    attackfighter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    Intellectual Elite HQ
    Yeah I like this and also:

    This. I especially like having early research fueled by pop, then increasingly more sophisticated buildings as the level of tech increases. These would be the most accurate representations.

    Sliders occasionally had it's uses, mainly for setting it to 0% and mass upgrading your army once you reached a certain tech. But for the most part it was just set to the highest it could go without putting you in the red income wise, so it ended up not adding to the game most of the time. Civ 5 still has those trade offs, you can work farm tile improvements to increase pop or work mines to increase production, same sort of mini-strategic decision as in your example.
     
  9. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,347

    Well to do that, all you really need to do is
    1. make the buildings more powerful
    2. make the techs more expensive

    Have a Library 2x the science production
    Lib+Uni=4x
    Lib+Uni+PS=8x
    Lib....Res Lab=16x

    And then increase the cost of the techs
     
  10. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    Actually, there have been many studies out there to suggest that greater population is always more beneficial in terms of innovation. Simply put, more minds = greater chance of scientific innovation, since one cannot possible predict the infinite possibilities the human mind can discover.

    In my option, the population = science was a good move. It makes sense to me.


    ?


    thats why britain conquered china and india?
    and came up with radar?
    and germany had like missles and russia had sub machine guns?
    and the Byzantines had greek fire and the hordes had

    what research? the one that ignored history?
     
  11. attackfighter

    attackfighter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,010
    Location:
    Intellectual Elite HQ
    Well actually for most of history china was more advanced than britain, and I'm not sure but I think the Byzantines were more populous than any barbarian tribe. I don't know what you're getting at when you say Russia doesn't have missiles, but I assure you that they do.
     
  12. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    germany "had" missles was what was written

    as in ww2

    as in vs russia

    as in the russians or the west for that matter- did not

    the byzantines never outnumbered their enemies which is why they used to bribe all the time

    China should be the most advanced country according to the theory of population as indicative of advancement

    they are not

    "Well actually for most of history china was more advanced than britain"

    you have a point there - but the lack of a Navy can be noted as the counter arguement for advancement via population size - de-evolution via the ruling class
     
  13. Goknub

    Goknub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    Germany had missiles because they beelined for Cruise Missiles and had too much science(Lib/Uni) and too few hammers(forge/factory).

    Russia won because they had the better balanced civ.

    And China was a "Puppet Civ" for the last few hundred years and only just got "liberated" so are starting from behind the 8-ball.

    -------------

    Have a Library 2x the science production
    Lib+Uni=4x
    Lib+Uni+PS=8x
    Lib....Res Lab=16x

    is good but would further disadvantage less-productive/advanced civs and make tech disparities worse. If it was matched with a scaled reduction in costs for each subsequent civ it could work.

    RL example, China took X years to develop gunpowder and it took hundreds more for the knowledge to become standard across Europe but today even Afghan goat-herders are producing dodgy 303s/AKs
     
  14. Slowpoke

    Slowpoke The Mad Modder

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    1,321
    yeah but that's due to tech diffusion really. Which kind of makes the entire realism portion of the topic worthless, so let's get back to gameplay :p
     
  15. Goknub

    Goknub Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    12
    I think tech diffusion is as important for gameplay as much as realism.

    Currently it is too easy to get too far ahead/behind in techs and end up steam-rolling the enemy or getting steam-rolled yourself, neither which is "fun".

    Dull/boring late-game is well known and going for a cutlure vic with a small civ/OCC makes any war mid/late game a suicide.
    As an example, Singapore is only a single city but has the most advanced military in South-east Asia so some level of tech diffusion would improve gameplay IMO.
     
  16. Alpedar

    Alpedar Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    127
    Tech diffusion definitely yes. (With lot of rings and bells, like paying (+reduced benefits) to diffuse some tech less, espionage, counter espionage ...)

    That would allow radical increase of tech cost per tech tier, so early techs would be easy to get from pop science, but late would require buildings.

    But it would mean that you can too easily backfill all techs once you have next tier research, so teching would look like mostly: beeline to tech building and backfill and repeat.

    So maybe some kind of research cost increase of previous age techs (gradual) . But that could make it booring too, because now everyone would research everything lower before proceeding.
     
  17. Dark_Jedi06

    Dark_Jedi06 "Deus ex Machina."

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    1,399
    Gender:
    Male
    But the Germans never used the V-2 rocket's against the Russians. :)
     
  18. Zen Blade

    Zen Blade Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    247
    I'm telling you guys...

    having to build certain buildings to get beakers for population is an ideal solution. It makes for good game play, AND it mimics reality.

    Do you want to really build that library to get a bunch of extra science (and upkeep cost) or do you want to build the granary, walls, etc...

    later...
    Okay, libraries no longer help with research... now we need a university. Damn, that is really labor-intensive AND expensive to maintain. BUT... it's the only way to get any technology.

    That is what basically happened in history. If you don't have higher and higher levels of learning, you STOP learning new things.
     
  19. JonoLith

    JonoLith Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    183
    Then why'd you start your whole point talking about realism v. gameplay if you had every intention of belittling those who used realism to further their own arguments?
     
  20. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    Yeah, if this were a gameplay argument, it would not start with Nigeria. The gameplay argument is quite logical. They wanted to remove the slider in order to enforce early investment that creates consequences later.
     

Share This Page