Science

[unmerged(2970)]

Originally posted by Steph
Sidney, if it works the way you suggested, then a country has no advantage to try to advance tech. You put 0 in tech and keep all your treasury to build army.

But this is the way it works in the game. More often you see one-province minors with huge armies that do not have enough monthly income after maintenance deduction to spend on research, but they still advance quite rapidly even investing 0 in technology.

Steph, to answer to your assumption that Navarrese officers traveled in France and Spain, and learned about new military (land) advances. When they return home, but the state/crown is not spending anything to implement these new advance - officers needed money to start production of muskets and cannons - how the country is supposed to modernise its army?

Technology spending is not only about learning new techniques and develop new arms, but also they regard to implementation of those discoveries in their armies and fleets. I hope you understood my point.

 

[Steph]

Originally posted by Cornelius

But this is the way it works in the game. More often you see one-province minors with huge armies that do not have enough monthly income after maintenance deduction to spend on research, but they still advance quite rapidly even investing 0 in technology.

Steph, to answer to your assumption that Navarrese officers traveled in France and Spain, and learned about new military (land) advances. When they return home, but the state/crown is not spending anything to implement these new advance - officers needed money to start production of muskets and cannons - how the country is supposed to modernise its army?

Technology spending is not only about learning new techniques and develop new arms, but also they regard to implementation of those discoveries in their armies and fleets. I hope you understood my point.

I didn't say the system is EU the computer game was good, only that Sidney's solution was not better. I prefer the solution in the BG. It made research easier : only the first one had to pay a lot, it was then cheaper for the others, but they still had to pay.
In my example, to get musket France has to get 30 level, but England only 16, if England is willing to have musket after both France and Spain.

 

[unmerged(2970)]

Ok, maybe your solution is indeed better,

but they still had to pay

to implement those advances.

I was mainly complaining on the matter that a country, like Navarra, [no disrespect intended to the people of that region] is advancing in technology quite rapidly without spending money into research and implementation of the advances.

 

[unmerged(5372)]

Originally posted by Besuchov


A popular part of young noblemens education were to take a tour of europe and learn new things. In the case of Swedeish noblemen these trips could include both Austria and the Ottoman Empire.

Not only a popular part, usually an essential part. The lack of universities in the 13th an 14th century made long trips to Italy necessary. Next to that, due to the linkage of families throughout Europe the diffusion of technology and (training) skill was inevitable..

Regards,

Witte de With

 

[Sidney]

Originally posted by Steph
Sidney, if it works the way you suggested, then a country has no advantage to try to advance tech. You put 0 in tech and keep all your treasury to build army.

They shouldn't, there is no tek tree in my world

What you say is essentially right, they just save their cash to try and build and more importantly maintain armies. As tek increases so does the cost of forces. You should also see a kind of "punctuated equilibrium" effect. Tek levels 1-8 might see a slow growth of costs but when the arquebus arrives...bang. The cost jumps sharply. Then costs would remain fairly stable until you reach the next break point and prices will once again increase rather dramatically.

This theory, of course, depends upon making maintenance costs a lot higher so that you don't just have silly/mad amounts of cash lying about to be spent.

 

[Spruce]

I guess there should be an option to make a altered ladder system in the tech tree. So things will follow on each other. Then I would make a difference between "key tech" and "tech improvement".

F.e. the use of artillery is a key tech, the usage of better cannonballs is a tech improvement. Let's say that use of artillery is tech 5, with improvements from 5.1 to 5.10. The use of muskets can be tech 6 with improvements from 6.1 to 6.5.

All things are researched as usual. Either you spend money on the main tech tree were the key techs are researched, or you go deeper into the tech improvements. Achieving a key tech is more difficult to obtain.

IMO, a nation should be able to buy off "key tech" from let's say alliance members. Or they can even be a gift at the diplomatic front. Tech improvements can have a significant bonus when you agree to a diplomatic agreement of collaboration on a certain point of key tech.

So a nation can have the key techs (example of military tech):

- ...
3 artillery,
4 use of army formations,
5 improved supply routes,
6 improved fortresses
7 use of cavalry formations,
8 use of musket,
9 tactical manoeuvres,
10 sappers,
11 horsemen with muskets (curassers?),
12 conscription centers,
13 field medic,
14 officer training facilities,
15 field hospital,
- ...

the ladder of key techs should be somewhat logical in order (conscription centers at the end, using artillery at te beginning) but nations have a span of f.e. 3 to go up. So if you research from key tech 4, you have a small chance that you find out tech 7. If this occurs, the chance of jumping up 3 should be lowered.