Man, he was quiet for so long...now that SD said about undoing the change, he talks again.

Perhaps the increasing costs of tech was a GOOD feature.

Also, assuming a topic he started that went many pages was represented in many people backing him. A hot topic of discussion isn't always filled with people agreeing.

The new patch has made things much more agreeable.

Why not a system who needs some points of research (a few percent), for each technology completed (and owned by trade, invasion, etc.), a sort of cost for knowledge maintain.
Each technology owned, decreases slowly the research capacity.

The player must invest in additional laboratories to maintain its research capacity at the same level.

Example:

Research capacity: 1000 points research.

Research cost of technology: 1000 points research.
Cost of maintaining technology: 10 points research (1% in this case).

Research time is therefore 1 week.

Once the technology is completed, it costs 10 points research to maintain research knowledge.


The research capacity becomes: 1000 - 10 = 990 points research.


A tag is added to the XML file in order to provide values more or less important for modding.

Example:

Culture ID="InterGov"
DisplayName Interstellar Governments /DisplayName
Cost 200 /Cost
KnowledgeCost 2 /KnowledgeCost

Culture ID="InterGov"
DisplayName Interstellar Governments /DisplayName
Cost 200 /Cost
KnowledgeCost 10 /KnowledgeCost


Just an idea with my bad English. 

I am torn as to whether this weekend is the weekend to really tear into this. Is the tech bug dead then or should I wait it out a bit more?

From other reports, it looks like the formula is far more fair at this point. I only hope the inflation still hits hard when not trading techs, because it was actually pretty sweet in that game.

Either way, looks like Uranium has one less thing to complain about.... Poor little guy.

What patch? I only see 1.91.021 which has been out since release.

Check this link



https://forums.galciv2.com/?aid=314852

Kevin

I have mentioned before without any feedback about the simple solution of adding a negative morale bonus to each tech building. This would prevent people from making huge tech planets ( without careful management ) and moderate tech advancement with a simple change that would not require a lot of programming. It also accuratly reflects reality as the majority of people do complain when large amount of funding are put into research or science ( look at NASA ) .

Just an idea am willing to listen to reasons why it would or would not work.

No.

Actually people do want a cure for cancer but if you ask them for the tax increase to increase spending on research for it they complain and private industry will not do reserch unless they see the possibility of profit at the end so many forms of cancer are ignored.

As to the hoard of Drengin unfortunatly history shows that there is always an enemy at the gates so to speak and if there isnt one then they create one.

Gw Swicord I see the point you are trying to make but research affects morale because the average person does not understand or does not want to wait for the long term benifits taht come from it.

So they have negative morale for the general population and do not give positive moral except for a tiny percentage of the population ( ie scientists and scholars ) .

Also churches and research buildings really do not serve the same role , sorry .

A closer analogy would be we can have a University but it also has to have a Football team or the city will not support it ( ie moral building ) .

Very true GW I did not take into account the roleplaying aspect and stand corrected about that.

If possible a morale bonus for that political party as applied to tech centers would be appropriate but I am uncertain as to how difficult it would be to implemant.

I tend to use historical and therefore "human" examples of social patterns and this was why I dissented from your view.

That's actually another part of why I was nattering on above about the parties in GC2. Forgive a bit of civics ranting from a former instructor, but here in the US we don't have a "real" party system. We have personality-driven politics wearing partisan drag.

IMO, the only major gap in the otherwise amazing genius of our Constitution is that the framers deluded themselves into believing they could work without institutional parties. Basically, because we have single-member, winner-take-all congressional districts, we are structurally prevented from having parties with either strong internal cohesion or broad and deep connections between member values and leadership poliices.

So, in my silly imaginary GC2-land, having a Technologist government doesn't mean that "the people" all love research. It just means that research is the most popular civic goal, at least until the government falls. That "the people" thing is probably the other greatest flaw of US democracy--many of us too often think that (or at least talk as if) 300 million folks can *all* agree on something other than the fact that we don't want ongoing violent revolution or authoritarian oppression. Well, even that last isn't strictly true; we have citizens who think they're in the vanguard of a Leninist proletariat, are actively working to get us all involved in race wars, want us governed by a specific set of theologians, etc.