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

[LordTC]

The problem is it doesn't represent the overwhelming portion of history. Scientific advancement came from places that had a head start in settling and could build an organized society and it came from competition and trade (while I don't think "tech trading" is realistic and I suppose research agreements are OK, I would also have liked techs researched by other civs to be cheaper). I'm trying to think of when government investment to promote science first became important. For military, I'd say the second half of the 19th century. For non-militaristic achievements, I can only think of things like the space race.

Neither system is ideal. The current version still rewards gold investment through research agreements and whatever that social policy is that gives you beakers on trading posts (I suppose that represents science through trade, but that might be a stretch). If you want gameplay mirroring reality explanations for why Germany should have a higher science in game, it's because they have more scientific buildings and trading posts and have completed far more research agreements than Nigeria. It's also because Nigeria was conquered for part of the game and is only now an independent civ once again.

There are examples of leaders donating to the church in exchange for the establishment of monasteries as far back as the middle ages, and this was at a time where research was done predominantly in monasteries and mainly benefitted the local nation (although it spread somewhat by church communications). Beyond major projects, how much technology is developed in a nation these days is largely a matter of the research spending of its government. Programs to attract top professors and provide them with good research facilities and spending (grants) are a huge factor in technological development.

 

[attackfighter]

There are examples of leaders donating to the church in exchange for the establishment of monasteries as far back as the middle ages, and this was at a time where research was done predominantly in monasteries and mainly benefitted the local nation (although it spread somewhat by church communications). Beyond major projects, how much technology is developed in a nation these days is largely a matter of the research spending of its government. Programs to attract top professors and provide them with good research facilities and spending (grants) are a huge factor in technological development.

I thought business spending was higher than government in modern times.

But anyways it doesn't really matter since both systems of research are defendable and the whole game is so abstract I don't know why research would be the first thing to be attacked.

The only real problem I have with both systems (that doesn't have to do with realism) is how they don't scale. It'd be nice if the cost of techs increased in proportion to your size and the level of advancment of your neighbours. That way you could have *real* wars of modern infantry vs modern infantry, and not dumb curbstomps of cavalry vs. crossbowmen. It is one of the reasons why I lose interest in late-game wars, there is just too much tech difference and even though I have all these cool new units like bombers and nukes, there is no need to use them because I can just roll my tanks through everyone else's spearmen.

 

[the343danny]

Fine, think of it this way. Germany has more libraries and universities, and other bonuses from policies (2 research per trading post), while Nigeria has little of those things, and negative income forces them to cut down on research.

 

[Moor]

you can't seriously compare Germany and Nigeria, Germany is a special case even after being bombed to little bits and cut in half they still managed to rebuild their country, and not only rebuild it, Germany is one of the first industrial powers in the world, i really have no clue how they did it against such overwhelming odds, must be the famous Prussian discipline ...

on the other hand Nigeria is a very traditional country and they don't value science and knowledge in their culture as much as Germany or Japan, not saying its good or bad its the just the way it is

 

[attackfighter]

Nigeria has lots of rivers, diamonds, gems and gold, so going by the old Civ 4 methodology they must be an economic powerhouse! Oh they aren't? Well darn, I guess Civ 4 doesn't model reality after all

 

[moscaverde]

Nigeria has lots of rivers, diamonds, gems and gold, so going by the old Civ 4 methodology they must be an economic powerhouse! Oh they aren't? Well darn, I guess Civ 4 doesn't model reality after all

Not true, as in the Civ 4 model you choose where you spent your money.

I do think the citizens should add beakers to your science input, but it should be a factor only in the beggining of the game (like techs rising so much in cost that 1 beaker per citizen should stop being relevant, buildings/scientists giving more beakers etc.).

 

[MadRat]

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.

Care to cite those studies? I would think that that hypothesis MIGHT apply to pre-industrial civs where localized innovation might crop up from time to time but it would be slow and the transmission of that idea would be slow. The point at which significant technological advance is needed you need infastructure dedicated science to spur research because in a pre-industrial civ you just are not going to get the economic surplus supporting anything other than a small aristocratic and mercantile class. IF you have 1 million people one of them may have an idea but if you have a school, lab, research facilities and enterpreneurial cash you can get a few hundred researchers that will all make discoveries faster.

The great equalizer is that the broader your education base the better the impact of population will be as more folks will be educated and capable of research. Thus you will gain an increased proportion. However it will still be only a small factor as technological skill increases as it constantly requires greater and greater specialization by a smaller cadre of researchers.

One of Civs big realism "flaws" is the idea that discoveries are linear and that all the resources are dedicated to a single research goal. I can see this in a command/auctocratic economy but otherwise the resources wil be dispersed.

Rat

 

[Slowpoke]

I know! Masters of Orion had the perfect technology rules way back when, but nobody adopted it

 

[Lobox]

stopped reading

You must be lost, here is the correct forum for you if you want to spam crap like the quoted post. http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/872818/
Moderator Action: Please don't troll other members here.

 

[attackfighter]

I don't play many games like civ, but from what I have played I really liked the research feature in Europa Universalis 3. It was balanced and historically accurate, and also very simple. I don't think Civ will ever have anything like it though, because civ focuses on such a broad timeframe and the devs don't really seem to care about "technical stuff" (the AI for example has gotten worse every iteration since Civ2)

You must be lost, here is the correct forum for you if you want to spam crap like the quoted post. http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/872818/

Haha, yeah I don't know what it is but Blizzard seems to have the wierdest and angriest PC fanbase. In fact they might even trump console fanbases in those regards

Not true, as in the Civ 4 model you choose where you spent your money.

Well they'd still have a powerful economy; they'd just be gifting it away to other civs or something :/

 

[Louis XXIV]

There are examples of leaders donating to the church in exchange for the establishment of monasteries as far back as the middle ages, and this was at a time where research was done predominantly in monasteries and mainly benefitted the local nation (although it spread somewhat by church communications). Beyond major projects, how much technology is developed in a nation these days is largely a matter of the research spending of its government. Programs to attract top professors and provide them with good research facilities and spending (grants) are a huge factor in technological development.

Monasteries didn't research, they copied old texts. Their entire scientific effort was devoted to preserving knowledge, not expanding it. Scientific advancement mostly came from contact with Islam and China. Besides, from the game's logic, donating to monasteries is represented by upkeep.

 

[attackfighter]

Imagine if real life Kingdoms invested 90% of their income into monastaries

that is why in civ the technology advancements happen 500 years before they did in reality: you are investing 90% of your GNP into monastaries and later universities

 

[Aristos]

I know! Masters of Orion had the perfect technology rules way back when, but nobody adopted it

Exactly! I always wanted to see a model like that applied to civ... the player chooses a "general" direction of research, applies the funds, and then there are random chances for a pool of different discoveries to happen, making each and every game completely different and not linear...

Add to that trading only blue prints, ala Hearts of Iron... tech trading should play a role in civ games, should not be erased completely, but nerfed... I reckon I usually play civ4 with NoTechBrokering at least, but a system that let's players trade the equivalent of "blue prints" would be interesting... maybe the blue print can be a part of the beakers cost, forcing the other player to still research the tech but at a much lower cost (Like in HoI).

 

[Mad Hab]

I think Civ 5 did one thing right: made money crucial for the game.

If they kept the slider, setting it on 100% science would not be a no-brainer anymore. The players would have a hard time deciding how much money to keep and how much to invest on science.

But nooooo, Civ 5 developers were full of "brilliant" ideas. High population = high science is bad both for gameplay and for simulating the reality. Usually, strong economy = high science, and all Civ games got it right - except for Civ5.

One step forward and several steps backwards, unfortunately...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

 

[Aristos]

I think Civ 5 did one thing right: made money crucial for the game.

If they kept the slider, setting it on 100% science would not be a no-brainer anymore. The players would have a hard time deciding how much money to keep and how much to invest on science.

But nooooo, Civ 5 developers were full of "brilliant" ideas. High population = high science is bad both for gameplay and for simulating the reality. Usually, strong economy = high science, and all Civ games got it right - except for Civ5.

One step forward and several steps backwards, unfortunately...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

exactly my point, amigo paulista...

 

[bonafide11]

Personally I enjoyed Civ Revolution's way of handling tech/gold. *gasp* Yeah, I said it... Civ Revolution had it right. Each city should be able to decide if the commerce it wants to work goes to science or gold. That gets rid of the slider and encourages city specialization and allows room for specialists. I think it's a better system than either Civ IV (which I preferred to Civ V) or Civ V.

For those saying "population should matter since a larger population allows for more people to study science." Yeah, of course population should matter... And it already did in Civ IV (and Civ Rev) because a larger population would allow more tiles to be worked and more specialists to be worked. That's how it should matter, but it shouldn't be the only deciding factor where a larger population automatically outgains a smaller population with better improved tiles.

 

[timtofly]

My question is why hasn't ICS worked for Nigeria.

Let's see how well an ICS strategy will work without any science buildings.

 

[neptune2000]

Exactly! I always wanted to see a model like that applied to civ... the player chooses a "general" direction of research, applies the funds, and then there are random chances for a pool of different discoveries to happen, making each and every game completely different and not linear...

Add to that trading only blue prints, ala Hearts of Iron... tech trading should play a role in civ games, should not be erased completely, but nerfed... I reckon I usually play civ4 with NoTechBrokering at least, but a system that let's players trade the equivalent of "blue prints" would be interesting... maybe the blue print can be a part of the beakers cost, forcing the other player to still research the tech but at a much lower cost (Like in HoI).

I never played Hearts of Iron, but that sounds interesting. You would in a sense be trading tech, but not science. Then a lower research cost could reflect reverse engineering it. Here's the blueprints to make a missile but we're not going to teach you the science behind it, have fun trying to launch it (ala US to China). Perhaps units built with a blueprint could have 8 hp instead of 10 to reflect the lack of understanding.

MOO was indeed fun with the multiple tech tracks, but that was a little easier since they basically started out at future tech, so you had tracks for shields, propulsion, etc. Still, I guess you could try to break the Civ tech tree into several tracks.

 

[TheBlackHole]

Research in Civ5 may start with population, but is compounded by SEVERAL factors (as mentioned in this thread -- the various buildings and various social policies). Why must all of these arguments bashing it make it seem as though the ONLY factor is population? That is absolutely not the case. Research is affected by population (so, food, number of cities, etc.), but greatly bolstered by buildings (production), research agreements (money) and social policies (culture). Those are some pretty major cornerstones of the whole game. Even the Free Thought social policy alone (+1 beaker/trading post) is an interesting way to link commerce and research.

Sure, you can definitely tweak some stuff here and there to make the non-population factors a little more important, but to devolve research in the game into nothing more than population is a disingenuous straw-man argument.

Saying that this model CANNOT be balanced is a bold statement. Take it to an extreme: what if public schools gave +1000% research bonus or some ludicrous number like that. What would the best course be? Build strong, high-producing cities and build up those public schools! ICS would be much less viable there. Point is, there's nothing "fundamentally" un-balance-able about it. The model most definitely can be tweaked to be balanced and interesting (not saying it is now, just that it can be).

 

[Helmling]

Surprised?

Germany's population: 82 million
Nigeria's population: 154 million

According to civ5's tech model, 1 beaker per population, the obvious conclusion is the one from the title.

But let's put realism apart, because in the end, gameplay>realism, right?

Wrong.

I am surprised that no one has analyzed this part of the civ5 model yet (at least I don't know it), but the implications of such a decision for gameplay are enormous. I won't focus on the realism part, although I have to accept that modelling a fact so separated from realism as 1 beaker per pop detracts a lot from the immersion of the game. I mean, is there anyone that still doubts that knowledge, and technological advance, happens thanks to only a small part of the population in every society in the world?

But let's focus on gameplay.

Most critics against ICS put the spotlight on things like the happiness model, or the resources model, or the lack of pressure to settle in good spots. Nobody seems to pay attention to the tech model in relation to ICS, yet it plays a huge role in it. Every point of population gives your civilization one extra beaker. Every new tech building gives your civ 25% extra beakers. Let's see: if you have a nice 10-pop city, and add a library, you would get 2.5 extra beakers. Right?

Why would you want to invest in a library, or any other tech building, if you can puppet that shiny 10-pop city of your neighbour? Or perhaps just create another city, let it grow, and once it reaches 3 pops, it would already be above the library's achievement...

So the present tech model strongly encourages ICS. It's not only about a dull, linear and simplistic tech tree anymore... any mod can add lots of new techs and OR gates to the tree to make it more interesting and deep. It's about the underlying research model and its effects, not only in science, but in gameplay.

There may be something to do to balance part of the effect. Puppeted cities should give only a percentage of beakers for its population (say 25%), and not the full amount. That may force a dilemma (the thing that we miss from previous civs: hard decisions): should I annex the city to get full research points from its population but deal with unhappiness, or puppet it and only get x% of research?

Unfortunately, that only deals with the "external" effect of the model in gameplay. The "internal" effect, true ICS, settling tiny, cheap cities everywhere, is still there, and cannot be balanced without breaking the present model.

So, it's not only gameplay>realism (a cheap counter argument, if you ask me). It's about gameplay itself. Can it be solved? Given the present model, engine and overall principles of civ5, I doubt so.

I've thought a lot about the inaccuracy of this as well. Population is not the key to technology in the real world, after all. However, Civ 4's system was equally problematic. In the real world, societies don't face the decision of having money or technology--quite the contrary.

I have yet to see a new, really good model proposed, but I agree that puppets need to be nerfed. Right now, they're a straight-up exploit.