StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The civ tanks vs swordsmen got me thinking (oh no) about tech levels in games. In RTS games, tech levels don't really represent actual advances on the battlefield, but the powers that be deeming more powerful weapons necessary. Hence, prices can be balanced with the power of the high tech levels against the low cost and versatility of the low tech levels.

However, in games that span several ages, this doesn't really make sense. Someone said in the civ thread that if a battleship costs twice as much as a man-o-war, then two man-o-wars should be an even match for a battleship.

However, tech levels should increase the efficiency of how many resources you pour in to your various war machines. So, to use the previous example, a very good, state of the art, man-o-war that costs twice as much as a regular warship from that era should be a match for two regular warships. However, if you jump up a tech level and get high tech battleships, it could cost you a similar amount to stock ships of previous tech levels, but still take on relatively more expensive ship.

That's my take on tech.

Rise of nations does a very good job of balancing cost and tech level by introducing new resources to be gathered. instead of arbitrarily laying down that an Iowa cost's 400 pieces of wood and a Galleon only a hundred, the galleon is made with food and wood while the Iowa class battleship costs food, metal and oil.

How about where the map is always the same size? I.e. no matter how low or high tech, the map doesn't reflect that?

Personally, I'd use those 'tech levels', where once you go up a level, the map suddenly gets larger. The entire map you were playing on sudenly becomes a single city in the larger map, etc. If you advanced up a tech level without defeating the local enemy, then your cities don't produce as much. Essentially based on the choices you make at a lower level, your cities at higher level will reflect those characteristics.

Kinda like Spore.

That would be pretty difficult to design, in my opinion. Generally, I've become accustomed to games that doesn't have tech levels, or "ages". Generally I have been playing Zero Hour for a long time, and used to build according to what buildings I've built. Recently I moved into Supreme Commander and found that their tiers were specific to the type of unit, which was preferable for me, rather than dumping massive resources to level up everything.

Also, I don't see how unit price is a valid comparison to unit capability.

Coalition wrote:How about where the map is always the same size? I.e. no matter how low or high tech, the map doesn't reflect that?

Personally, I'd use those 'tech levels', where once you go up a level, the map suddenly gets larger. The entire map you were playing on sudenly becomes a single city in the larger map, etc. If you advanced up a tech level without defeating the local enemy, then your cities don't produce as much. Essentially based on the choices you make at a lower level, your cities at higher level will reflect those characteristics.

Kinda like Spore.

Nah, what'd be really cool would be able to go back to the city level and play there for a few game-years to upgrade it, then go back to the Empire level. Combine Caesar3 style with Civ with EU2, depending on the detail level you want. Kind of insane to program though.