Question regarding tech costs: This is a somewhat complicated subject. The simplistic increases in tech costs post paper have always been...in need of smoothing out. I still feel that the increased costs up to 100% are beneficial in stopping tech leaders running away by an era and then crushing competitors, but the ramp up needs...ramping down. This is how I thought about doing it:
The end point is that the start of the Industrial era techs ought to be +100% cost. A somewhat simplistic idea would be to start at Education (and the equivalent techs Gunpowder, PP, Nationalism) and keep them at the current +25%, and then every tech after this increase the tech cost by a further 50%. In some instances, this removes a lot of the ramp up (Nationalism>Constitution>Corporation>Assembly Line), in others...not so much (PP+Astro>SM). As a list compared to base BtS tech costs:
Education: +25%
PP: +25%
Nationalism: +25%
Gunpowder: +25%
Astronomy: +25%
Economics: +50%
Liberalism: +50%
Replaceable Parts: +50%
Military Tradition: +50%
Constitution: +50%
Chemistry: +50%
Democracy: +75%
Rifling: +75%
Corporation: +75%
Military Science: +75%
Steel: +75%
Steam Power: +75%
Artillery: +100% (Ind era)
Assembly Line: +100% (Ind era)
Scientific Method: +100% (Ind era)
Railroad: +100% (Ind era)
Now the question I ask myself is: “Would this change be justified?” I’m not entirely sure if it is, but what do others think? Note: the known tech bonus is going to be fixed so that regardless of NTT or TT, the total bonus will max out at 150.
0. Player Requests: The player's requests take precedence, even if they contradict the following guidelines.
1. Balance: The map must be balanced, both in regards to land quality and availability and in regards to special civilization features. A map may be wonderfully unique and surprising, but, if it is unbalanced, the game will suffer and the player's enjoyment will not be as high as it could be.
2. Identity and Enjoyment: The map should be interesting to play at all levels, from city placement and management to the border-created interactions between civilizations, and should include varied terrain. Flavor should enhance the inherent pleasure resulting from the underlying tile arrangements. The map should not be exceedingly lush, but it is better to err on the lush side than on the poor side when placing terrain.
3. Feel (Avoiding Gimmicks): The map should not be overwhelmed or dominated by the mapmaker's flavor. Embellishment of the map through the use of special improvements, barbarian units, and abnormal terrain can enhance the identity and enjoyment of the map, but should take a backseat to the more normal aspects of the map. The game should usually not revolve around the flavor, but merely be accented by it.
4. Realism: Where possible, the terrain of the map should be realistic. Jungles on desert tiles, or even next to desert tiles, should therefore have a very specific reason for existing. Rivers should run downhill or across level ground into bodies of water. Irrigated terrain should have a higher grassland to plains ratio than dry terrain. Mountain chains should cast rain shadows. Islands, mountains, and peninsulas should follow logical plate tectonics.
I can see the justification. The tech costs were set as balanced early in Civ 4's development. And then players got better, learning how to optimize faster expansion, growth rates, whip cycles, cottage turns. And the expansions added goodies like corporations and espionage economy and new wonders like the Mausoleum without raising tech prices. So now the community's player skill outstrips the cost of later techs by a much greater margin than in earlier days of Civ 4.
OTOH, maybe it's good if the leader can turn his advantage into military crushing, to bring games to a conclusion. The alternative is PBEM 4 Vets, which would have lasted another hundred turns under this sort of modification.
(June 11th, 2013, 13:54)T-hawk Wrote: OTOH, maybe it's good if the leader can turn his advantage into military crushing, to bring games to a conclusion. The alternative is PBEM 4 Vets, which would have lasted another hundred turns under this sort of modification.
ooh, that would be fun.
I like, mostly, but think education should be 0%.
Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.
(June 11th, 2013, 13:54)T-hawk Wrote: OTOH, maybe it's good if the leader can turn his advantage into military crushing, to bring games to a conclusion. The alternative is PBEM 4 Vets, which would have lasted another hundred turns under this sort of modification.
I think that's hyperbole, but there were also other factors to why PBEM4V went on for so long. I had the entire tech tree researched in PBEM4V, even doubling tech costs wouldn't have added more than 30-40 turns to a game if I were to research the entire tech tree. If I had gone for quickest victory rather than a conquest (like, if the game was ever in doubt once I won Lib) I could have attempted some earlier warfare but I could have just gone for SS. But the main problem was the map, inland sea maps are not conducive to warfare especially when one neighbour just never stops building troops (literally, Cyneheard had over 200 units in his front city at the end of the game. You beat that by going for SS, not warfare unless he can't keep up because he has so many units). Then there was the issue with trait balance on a flat map at novice difficulty (Yay, ORG...) and the lack of demographics to make informed decisions reinforcing the gamble that was warfare.
(June 11th, 2013, 13:54)T-hawk Wrote: OTOH, maybe it's good if the leader can turn his advantage into military crushing, to bring games to a conclusion. The alternative is PBEM 4 Vets, which would have lasted another hundred turns under this sort of modification.
To be totally frank, I think decreasing inflation would be a better tweak due to late game costs, what with the slightly slower starts due to nerfed slavery (or rather, starts are slower because we also don't all get to play the uber high food starts that we used to play, and inflation is a product of how many turns have passed). Low food starts that worked better by using a ton of hills are no different to base BtS. Dropping the inflation %age by one difficulty level (so Monarch has the same inflation as base Prince, Prince the same as base Noble) would probably solve a lot of the potential issues of the #1 civ not being get over the finishing line.
.
