Ahead of Time Bonuses and Maluses

[hahaha01357]

I understand that this is limitation on technology is used to make technologies progress more historically but couldn't the same effect be achieved by just raising the power cost of technologies? It just makes no logical sense to me that technologies have to be discovered at a certain date.

 

[CroatianEmperor]

Ahead of time penalty increases the power cost of unlocking a technology by 10% for every year ahead of time. I don't understand what the issue is.

 

[hahaha01357]

Mechanically it makes it impossible to unlock a technology 15-20 years ahead of time depending on your bonuses/maluses to your technology cost. It also gives you a bonus for being "ahead of time" in addition to the benefits of the new technology. It just makes no logical sense to me how time has to do with technology. Why has this mechanic at all when you can just increase the overall tech cost to achieve the same effect?

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Mechanically it makes it impossible to unlock a technology 15-20 years ahead of time depending on your bonuses/maluses to your technology cost. It also gives you a bonus for being "ahead of time" in addition to the benefits of the new technology. It just makes no logical sense to me how time has to do with technology. Why has this mechanic at all when you can just increase the overall tech cost to achieve the same effect?

You just answered yourself, the ahead of time penalty increases the tech cost to achieve an effect where people in the early 17th century can't suddenly develop artillery and rifles.
I really don't understand what the issue is here.

 

[CroatianEmperor]

It just makes no logical sense to me how time has to do with technology.

It takes time to find issues with any new technology, and even more time to find solutions and improvements for it. After a certain point you can't speed up the process no matter how many resources you put into it. That's the best explanation I can give outside of the obvious balance issues of allowing players to improve tech without any hard brakes.

 

[FrogCrusher]

I think he would like to have a flat increase in cost not depending on the year so that if he managed to have lots of point, he could be more ahead than in reality.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

There is a minimum flat increase anyway, something like 1% per century? I can't recall, but yeah, aside from game break reasons, the game does try its best to emulate the actual evolution of technology and preventing stuff like the Ottomans under Mehmed II having cannons in 1470

 

[CroatianEmperor]

I think he would like to have a flat increase in cost not depending on the year so that if he managed to have lots of point, he could be more ahead than in reality.

So something like a permanent +10 MP for each consequtive tech level? That would result in a permanent +290(if my math isn't wrong) increase for the final tech level(32).

This assumes that monarch power is more abundant the later in the game you go, which isn't supposed to be the case. MP is supposed to be a "currency" that doesn't scale regardless of country size or time period(unlike, for example, money).

 

[deathbypie]

Each tech already does cost more than the one before. The ahead of time penalty is also important, because being one mil tech ahead is already a huge advantage. If you could just focus mil and get a x/x/6 ruler and keep teching forever, that would just be silly.

 

[hahaha01357]

You just answered yourself, the ahead of time penalty increases the tech cost to achieve an effect where people in the early 17th century can't suddenly develop artillery and rifles.
I really don't understand what the issue is here.

The issue is that this mechanic is an artificial limit on how quickly technology can develop with no basis in reality. In the real world, technological advancement is restricted by such things as resources, societal need, prior knowledge, etc. Logically, just because it's the 17th century, doesn't mean you can't have rifles, field artillery, or heck, even trucks and tanks. What's more, the whole 17th century inventions should happen in the 17th century thing can be modeled pretty easily by just increasing the base cost of technologies to the point where, on average, each technology will appear roughly when it should. Moreover, historically, there were a whole lot of innovations during early-modern Europe as each nation tried to gain the edge over the others and removing the "ahead of time" penalty" can better model this (and other) technological arms races.

 

[Kastomoño]

If ming wasn't limited by the ahead of time malus then we would see them in tech 32 by 1550.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Logically, just because it's the 17th century, doesn't mean you can't have rifles, field artillery, or heck, even trucks and tanks.

Please don't put Civilization into my Europa Universalis, thank you very much.

 

[mysticdueler]

What's more, the whole 17th century inventions should happen in the 17th century thing can be modeled pretty easily by just increasing the base cost of technologies to the point where, on average, each technology will appear roughly when it should.

But . . . This already happens in the game . . . I don’t . . . What . . . What exactly is it you’re asking for?

 

[Badesumofu]

What's more, the whole 17th century inventions should happen in the 17th century thing can be modeled pretty easily by just increasing the base cost of technologies to the point where, on average, each technology will appear roughly when it should.

That wouldn't work at all. Monarch points don't get significantly easier to acquire as the game progresses. You'll get a few more of each type per month in the late game due to advisors, but the game simply isn't built for the model you're suggesting. It just doesn't work like research in Civ. From a gamist point of view, if your system were to be implemented in the current game then the only viable strat would be to go full-on MIL focus and rush MIL techs until you had them all and then go ROFL-stomp the world effortlessly. So then the programmers would have to program the AI to rush MIL techs as well which would force all players to pursue this strategy or face being wiped out.

Essentially it would completely and utterly unbalance and wreck the game. It is actually the worst suggestion I have read in quite a while.

 

[hahaha01357]

Please don't put Civilization into my Europa Universalis, thank you very much.

To be honest, the reason I like EU and other Paradox titles more than Civilization is because it better models history, not because it copies history. I don't mean to be flippant but if I wanted to see the game unfold the way it did historically, then I would've watched a documentary.

But . . . This already happens in the game . . . I don’t . . . What . . . What exactly is it you’re asking for?

Haha I don't really understand why what I'm asking for is going over people's heads. I'm saying the "ahead of time" bonuses and penalties are superfluous and doesn't serve any purpose other than to lock down technological progress to how it happened historically. I'm also saying that this effect can be modeled pretty easily by other means such as adjusting the base value of technology costs or (here's a new idea) divorcing technology from monarch power altogether. Furthermore, removing this limit on technology progression will help simulate the technological arms race as had happened historically. Therefore: ahead of time bonuses and maluses should be removed.

 

[hahaha01357]

That wouldn't work at all. Monarch points don't get significantly easier to acquire as the game progresses. You'll get a few more of each type per month in the late game due to advisors, but the game simply isn't built for the model you're suggesting. It just doesn't work like research in Civ. From a gamist point of view, if your system were to be implemented in the current game then the only viable strat would be to go full-on MIL focus and rush MIL techs until you had them all and then go ROFL-stomp the world effortlessly. So then the programmers would have to program the AI to rush MIL techs as well which would force all players to pursue this strategy or face being wiped out.

Essentially it would completely and utterly unbalance and wreck the game. It is actually the worst suggestion I have read in quite a while.

But isn't what you're describing a technological arms race as had happened historically during various points in history?

 

[durbal]

I understand that this is limitation on technology is used to make technologies progress more historically but couldn't the same effect be achieved by just raising the power cost of technologies? It just makes no logical sense to me that technologies have to be discovered at a certain date.

No, because you'd need to increase the amount of MP gained as time goes on then too or else you'd never get to higher technologies -- which would create a bigger problem for the static MP costs (literally everything besides technology).

If you have a problem with tech not advancing fast enough then just play Ottos or Ming and herp derp your way to multiple techs ahead.

 

[GRWalker]

The increase in technology cost is already geometrical, since it's also a prerequisite to research all previous ones. On top of that you have the increase over time modifier. If you add additional costs, it would be prohibitive for small countries to research technologies, even on time.

In the end there is a maximum tech level (33), and the ahead of time penalty makes sure that level ups are interspersed throughout the duration of the campaign. Because of you allow Ming to level up to level 33 by 1600, what is there left for them to research until the end of the campaign?

Personally I would love a simple tech tree rather than a linear progression, also dipping into the concept of institutions and institution spread... Here's hoping for EU5!

 

[ecrurudesby]

Logically, just because it's the 17th century, doesn't mean you can't have rifles, field artillery, or heck, even trucks and tanks.

Give me strength.

Where does it end? Can we have aeroplanes? Automatic rifles? Internal combustion? Nuclear fission? Robots? Space exploration? What possible justification can there be for centuries of technological advancement made in a matter of months and years? Unless you can give reasons grounded in truth or actual (not made up) logic, then technology has to advance roughly as it did in history. Otherwise what the hell are we playing?

Ahead of time does its job just fine. Replacing it with just increasing tech costs is not a viable option unless you literally increase the monarch point cap to a million or some such number.

I don't mean to be flippant but if I wanted to see the game unfold the way it did historically, then I would've watched a documentary.

Because a game that closely resembles history is impossible.....

Saying "go watch a documentary" or "I'd watch a documentary if I wanted that" triggers me so bloody hard. You play a realistic fps? Go watch a movie. You play a fantasy rpg? Go read a book. Wait no, it's almost like they are all completely different media and the argument has no relevance whatsoever.

Then you go on to want an "historical arms race", somehow without limits on tech cost. How on earth are those two positions compatible?

 

[Badesumofu]

But isn't what you're describing a technological arms race as had happened historically during various points in history?

The historical arms race where everyone went from 15th century military tech to 19th century military tech within 100 years or so?

I'm not familiar with that one, no.