Technology Advancing Too Fast

[Dux1]

Usually, I play standard-length games on standard-size continent maps using the Prince (baseline) difficulty. This typically results in a tech progression that is more-or-less true to life (some civs may be a bit ahead and others a bit behind, but nothing totally ridiculous). This is all well and good, but Prince had started to get a bit easy, so I bumped the difficulty up to King. I kept all other settings the same, and now there are wars with Industrial units (Infantry, Artillery, etc.) going on in the late 1700s. One AI civ even hit the Modern Era in like, 1831. What gives?

Is there any way to increase the difficulty of the game without breaking immersion like this? Do longer games or larger maps have any affect on tech progression?

Thanks for the tips.

 

[Clrdk]

I have just started a game on KING, standard map (Random), but because the get the new tech to fast in a standard game, I always play on Marathon.

Yes, It have big effect to tech progression to play on marathon, I think it take 1.5 timers longer to get a tech compared to standard game.

 

[wcbarney]

I guess I don't get your point. You say that the Prince level is too easy for you, but when you go to the King level it's too hard because the AI civs outpace you in the tech race?

I think the tech race is a really big part of the big picture. Personally I don't play at the King level 'cause it's too easy; however, the Emperor level seems to be just right -- challenging but not overwhelming. You've got to concentrate on technology right from the get-go; when you get the choice of building a market or a university, for instance, then build the university! I always strive to ally with many/most/all of the CS on the map, 'cause one of the main benefits of allied CS are research beakers (which come with the Scholasticism policy in the Patronage tree).

 

[Dux1]

It's not that the AI are outpacing me. My own tech is moving along really quickly in King as well -- way too quickly, from a historical standpoint (e.g., I have Infantry and Tanks in the early 1800s). What I'd like to know is why things progress fairly realistically in Prince but become completely unrealistic in King.

 

[roguepro92]

the game isn't meant to be realistic o.0

the higher difficulty also improves you somewhat because AI has more gold to trade and more likely to play smart wars meaning they'll drag each other down if you stay out of it with good politics.

or they'll speed each other up because everyone's all happy and lovey
+ the % boost/multiplier is nice for the AI and even nicer if the player can leverage it

 

[Johan de Witt]

It's not that the AI are outpacing me. My own tech is moving along really quickly in King as well -- way too quickly, from a historical standpoint (e.g., I have Infantry and Tanks in the early 1800s). What I'd like to know is why things progress fairly realistically in Prince but become completely unrealistic in King.

I think there's just not enough techs in the game. Especially musketmen, riflemen, tanks, ironclads and fighters obsolete way too fast. The game could do with a few extra techs in the industrial age.

 

[apocalypse105]

I think there's just not enough techs in the game. Especially musketmen, riflemen, tanks, ironclads and fighters obsolete way too fast. The game could do with a few extra techs in the industrial age.

Yes musketman go really fast obsolete same goes with tanks..

I thinx it is more of a snowball effect the more technologie you have the faster you will get new technologies because of the new buildings like university, research lab and so on...... And your cities keep growing sow more science.


I allways play on epic or marathon just sow that i dont speed through time especially with the research agreements i wish there was a buttom to dissable this the Ai is crazy with this is everyone is friendly everyone signs researchagreements over the place and are at the start of the game allready in the medieval era, There should be a limit to research agreements...


If they just changed the tech tree sow if you want to go for rifleman you have to at least research more then 2 technologies sow you actually can make use of your musketman.Same goes for infantry you dont even need to research rifling to go to replecable parts what?

And for tanks they should have made it a more important unit sow everybody wants it now everybody goes for mechanised infantry.

My advice about this is play a standard map space on marathon.

 

[chazzycat]

You have to play pretty badly at the higher levels to stick with a realistic timeline. Often I'm building caravels around 1000-1100 AD, not 1492, and having my industrial revolution in the 1600/1700s. C'est la vie. I don't think the devs put much thought into this, but as far as I can remember, it's been that way in all the civ games. Play well and you should be well ahead of the "realistic" tech progression.

 

[forty2j]

Don't forget that in the "real world", there were about 500 years where absolutely nothing advanced. I pay absolutely no attention to the in-game year, I'm just concerned with my status relative to other civs.

 

[ColinTH]

Is there any way to increase the difficulty of the game without breaking immersion like this? Do longer games or larger maps have any affect on tech progression?

Thanks for the tips.

You could go to advanced options and increase the number of opponents relative to the map size, this will cut down their available expansion area and thus slowing their science rate slightly.

The downside is that overcrowding causes wars, and quite often one or two of them become conquerers with huge empires!

eg. I play - Deity - small map - 10 players (not six)- no ruins (cuts out lucky techs).

Some people say I am cheating, but it keeps me happy!

 

[_hero_]

You could go to advanced options and increase the number of opponents relative to the map size, this will cut down their available expansion area and thus slowing their science rate slightly.

The downside is that overcrowding causes wars, and quite often one or two of them become conquerers with huge empires!

eg. I play - Deity - small map - 10 players (not six)- no ruins (cuts out lucky techs).

Some people say I am cheating, but it keeps me happy!

I've found the opposite to be true. I find that the more players there are the faster the techs flow as there are more Research agreements to be had.

 

[ColinTH]

I've found the opposite to be true. I find that the more players there are the faster the techs flow as there are more Research agreements to be had.

Very true, but I think the op was more concerned about keeping up with the AI civs. Humans are the best at making research agreements, and probably much better at planning research strategy. As long as the AI civs havn't got 20+ size twenty to fifty cities we are in with a fighting chance!

I am playing a game as England OCC Deity Archipelago Marathon small map v 9 oponents and no ruins. To save myself continually looking through deal history, I keep an RA list. I am on turn 662, I have completed 23 RAs and have another 4 in motion. I will even buy a resource that I don't need to make their gold up and get an RA. Sometimes I will give them gold for nothing then offer an RA (backfires sometimes).

 

[SpearMan153]

Don't forget that in the "real world", there were about 500 years where absolutely nothing advanced. I pay absolutely no attention to the in-game year, I'm just concerned with my status relative to other civs.

as i understand things that 500 years of no advancement is a myth

 

[kiitos]

Playing on quick game mode pretty much breaks the unit technology balance. Units become outdated by the time you have your army ready!

 

[JaGarLo]

Yes, I agree. Tecnology goes sometimes way too fast. Personally, I prefer having catapults, knights and longswordsmans at 1000 AD than having a 21st-Century army at the same time.

In my opinion, I would decrease the power of... You know, that SP that gives you science from CS's (I don't know the name of that in English!). I think 33% of their production is way too much. Maybe at 10% (and increasing in further eras). Also, RA's should be more expensive. Or what about a Great Scientist giving a X% progress of a unresearched late tecnology?

My idea for a mod: that tecnologies can start being researching at a time. An example: you may only start researching Steam Power at 1675 AD (we don't say at 1750 because that would be too late). Or you can start Gunpowder at 1000 AD (maybe the Chinese discovered it at that time; but they started using it in military purposes at 1200). And so. I don't have any idea of how do you build a mod, but if you're interested in the idea, you can use it to make the mod.

At last, I think the requisites to move on an era should be: ''Get a tecnology from the next era, and have X tecnologies''. I don't say all tecs in your era; but some of them. So you don't get into medieval at 1000 BC, for example.

Just my opinion, of course. Sorry for bad English!

 

[Randall Turner]

To steal a concept from Europa Universalis series, you can research anything at any time (long as you have the pre-requisites) but...

1) Earlier you research it, more expensive it is. (ie, beaker cost decreases as you approach time it was actually discovered.)
2) More other civs have it, cheaper it is. (Allows laggers to catch up.)

 

[Furycrab]

It mostly just depends on how many RA's are floating about. Currently I think they give too many research points for the time invested, but that's just me. There is just no way of investing the gold into any type of infrastructure that will give you even close to as many bechers.

Continent games also tend to encourage a heavy amount of later game RAs once people hit astronomy and you can start trading with survivors of the early game, and they are far enough away that they don't covet your lands in any way.

 

[Karl_Rove]

IMO, the problem is just that not enough time is spent in each era, especially classical. I think the best decision would be to create more techs/requirements, as has been suggested.That way, I can really make use of my swordsmen before I'm promoting them all to longswordsmen.

The date thing at the top is just arbitrary, and I don't pay any attention to it unless I'm rage-reloading a save (NO IRON?!?). Does it really matter what they call the time when civs enter the industrial revolution? They could call it 1800, 1273, 40500 or </aDDs@$1 for all I care.

 

[_hero_]

as i understand things that 500 years of no advancement is a myth

It would be more accurate to say 500 years of very little advancement with most of the time spent recovering lost knowledge. And of course there were pockets of the world that were thriving at the time, but the most advanced part, the Roman Empire, fell and was overrun by what Civ V would call barbarians who had little interest in education at the time.

Meanwhile in China, India, and Africa, civilization was advancing normally. I guess the problem is that those areas with the exception of China were catching up from behind. The Chinese, unfortunately, had their own Dark ages or we may indeed be much further along technologically as a race.

 

[DSChapin]

I really think the biggest issue is that the "Classical" period is too short: notice that it's only one "column" whereas all the other eras are two columns. If there were a second Classical column, then the progression would feel more natural, and we wouldn't be entering the later eras so darned early.