Re: Uses for change-type action?

[Hans Ronne <hronne at pp dot sbbs dot se>]

>When I see this kind of thing in a game design, I feel pretty sure
>that we're seeing the compromise outcome of a lengthy and heated
>internal debate.  Real-life technology is a lot more complicated
>than the Civ2 tech tree, but if the designers had tried to include
>everything, the game would have been heinously complicated and
>boring to boot ("Your wise men have achieved Riemannian geometry"),
>and at that level of detail, the relationships are not at all
>obvious - shipwrights were building galleons whether or not they
>had heard of Leonardo ...

Hey, Riemannian geometry is an obvious precondition for FTL ships. Every
school kid knows that :-).

But I agree that the tech tree (not to mention the wonders) in Civ2 makes
little sense. Why on Earth, for example, should Polytheism enable the
construction of Elephants? It was precisely because I was fed up by this
kind of nonsense that I put a lot of work into the tech tree of advances.g,
which is much more realistic. But then again, this game is perhaps coming a
little too close to being "heinously complicated" ...

Hans

Hans Ronne

hronne@pp.sbbs.se