Tech tree based calendar with round steps

[raxo2222]

The idea of the calendar is so that the player can have the feeling at least of comparing his progress against the real world's progress rate.

Then slowdown everyone if tech leader is overspeeding and speedup everyone if tech leader is too slow.
This could be optional too.
Real world progress would be averaging tech per bit more than two turns on Normal.
Player being most advanced civ while others remain competitive won't be a thing soon.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Then slowdown everyone if tech leader is overspeeding and speedup everyone if tech leader is too slow.

That's pretty close to what WFL and Tech Diffusion achieves to try to keep them all closer to each other as the game goes along.

The clock is just a little illusory trick and we've always known it but it's a cute holdover from Civ I, II, III, IV - sure it was easier to make work when the game was simpler but its still cool to have IMO.

 

[raxo2222]

That's pretty close to what WFL and Tech Diffusion achieves to try to keep them all closer to each other as the game goes along.

This decreases variation.
I was talking about adaptive tech global that increases/decreases to keep most advanced civ closely synced with calendar (2.1 turns per tech on Normal).

 

[Thunderbrd]

This decreases variation.
I was talking about adaptive tech global that increases/decreases to keep most advanced civ closely synced with calendar (2.1 turns per tech on Normal).

Yes but then the calendar isn't a representation of how ahead or behind you have been able to be in comparison to our estimation of how it actually went in RL, which is the whole point of having the calendar, a measure of time you're trying to compete against.

 

[Morlark]

This decreases variation.
I was talking about adaptive tech global that increases/decreases to keep most advanced civ closely synced with calendar (2.1 turns per tech on Normal).

This is actively the opposite of what you want to achieve. Players like to be able to see and measure their success. You're proposing to penalise players for succeeding.

 

[raxo2222]

This is actively the opposite of what you want to achieve. Players like to be able to see and measure their success. You're proposing to penalise players for succeeding.

This is global tech cost, not player tech cost.
That is everyone have more expensive or cheaper techs.
Relative advantage still is possible.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I could see some wanting it as an option I suppose.