Blind or picked research? - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Blind or picked research?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Blind or picked research?

dirwulf posted 02-12-99 10:49 PM ET
How are you all playing the game? Using Blind Research, or picking the next technology to research? Does anyone know the way the game was intended to be played, blind or picked? This has REALLY been bugging me. I'm so used to Civ II, but I kinda like the concept of blind research, which I believe is actually the intended way to play the game. Opinions?
TheClockKing posted 02-12-99 11:39 PM ET
I like to be able to pick my research type and thus use this system. To me it is also more realistic. If I was a great leader and being overrun by enemies I would not tell my scientists to go develop something in the field of conquer, I would tell them that they will make my military more able to defend themselves or else. Today and in the future most things that are created scientifically are things that the scientists set out to create and not the serendipity inventions of the old. This is just my opinion though.
Hex posted 02-13-99 02:58 AM ET
Actually picking isn't realistic (to my mind) because how can you tell the scientists to invent something that you haven't inveted yet... But you could tell them give me something to wage war with...
Schole posted 02-13-99 09:45 AM ET
I agree. I think Blind Research is the default and better way (in realistic sense) of presenting research in a strategy game.
And if you read the manual carefully there is a random factor in "picked" research too - the list of available techs is random and doesn't always show the full amount of techs that you can research.
Schole posted 02-13-99 09:46 AM ET
And one more point - I play a game to challenge myself - since Blind Research is harder, I like it
TheClockKing posted 02-13-99 11:12 PM ET
Two points first about realism. Hex you would be right, in my opinion if this game simulated the past where most inventions and scientific discoveries were discovered by luck or accident. This game though simulates the future. Today and in the future scientific research does not exist in a void but rather as a part of our society. In the past discoveries were usually made by individuals but these days they are done mainly by businesses and other giant groups of people that seek to fill a need. That is a key point. These days scientists have knowledge of what they are researching and what they want to do with it when developed. The people in charge of these groups pretty much deside what they are going to research. They don't of coarse say you will develope X but instead say that a need in society needs to be filled and the it is the scientists job to fill that need. In Alpha Centauri if your cities were being overrun by other forces you would not tell you scientists that there was a need in society for a new military application but rather that there is a need for better armor or prehaps P.S.I. defense. This is my opinion on this point. As to the contention that it is more difficult to play this game with blind research it depends on who you play. Playing the beleivers and yes it will be harder, use UoP and it is not more difficult as you are usually getting a tech every 1-4 turns. Well that concludes my opinions on this matter for now.
TheClockKing posted 02-13-99 11:14 PM ET
Sorry about the spelling and gramor errors in the above statement.
ThunderAxe posted 02-13-99 11:30 PM ET
Well, I ran my first 2 games using the default setting (blind) but after playing each about 50 turns, I switched back to the ol' tried and true "pick your own" ala Civ II
Prerogative posted 02-13-99 11:36 PM ET
I myself am a Blind player. Not only is it more challanging and realistic, but when I finally get the dagnabbed game I'll have an upper-hand over non-blind players.
ClockKing, I beg to differ.
Yes, we know terminology now. "Biology" "Chemistry" "Astronomy" "Atomic," whatever. But it's just terminology. We have made names for things we don't understand, but we still don't understand them.
I can walk up to some scientist guy and say "Hey, guy, America needs a better justice system, make me a lie detector that never fails." Yes, ClockKing, I can TELL him that. But CAN he do it? Probably not. I'm sure Greek philosphers asked each other to discover a way to fly, or a way to live forever. But it never happened.
Many things have been made by accident, even today. Right now we can order, and have something done, only in our own field of knowledge. But the only way we know of to create a whole new field of research is to just stumble flat upon it. Example:
We have theories about time travel.
We have no idea how to preform time travel.
What can we do to improve our knowledge of time travel? Get some geniuses together and have them listen to Christopher Hawkins over and over again while staring at abunch of clocks?
Doubtful, it's more likely we'll have to get some people together on a rickety Klingon Bird of Prey and throw it at the sun, just like they did in Star Trek.
But this is just my own opinion.
TheClockKing posted 02-14-99 12:05 AM ET
Prerogative: Yes I know that many things are still discovered by chance, what I am saying though is more and more people research things with one particular goal in mind. They see something that needs correcting or fixing and go about to solve this problem. This does take time though. I'm not saying that I could go up to a scientist and tell him to invent a method for time travel as that is currently not a reality. I would argue with that example though because in using that example to illistrate how blind research is better you would have to say that under a blind research system this tech. would be possible.
Prerogative posted 02-14-99 12:25 AM ET
Well, yes, ClockKing, things are also discovered with a particular mean in mind. But that in and of itself is not new to our age.
Europeans wanted ways to kill things better:
Europeans made guns.
The idea is, people always think that things are getting more succinct, and then some bozo comes along and screws it all up. Right now, as I examplified, we know some things about quite a few fields. But we can only go so far in the said fields before somebody finds something new and world shattering about said field.
In reality, it requires a combination of both. You can only go so far just telling the wisemen to sit around and think about stuff. In the same context, you can only figure out so much by throwing a rickety Klingon Bird of Prey at the sun (well... maybe not, but that's another subject.) Discovery (which could be defined as "Finding something new") allows the expansion of knowledge, and with the expansion of knowledge new discoveries can be made. Discovery doesn't always require accidents, of course, but you can't discover that much just by thinking about it.
But I use Blind more just 'cause it's challenging
TheClockKing posted 02-14-99 12:33 AM ET
I agree 100% that it takes both methods for research to be accomplished. All I am saying though is that today the direct method is used sucessful more often than it was in the past. Also blind research does not necessarly make the game harder it really depends who you are using. Some races can afford to not be choosy about what tech they are researching as they will acquire 3 for every 1 another race gets, for this race though the game will become in essance more dificult. I use the UoP and can do well using blind research but I prefer to have the ultimate power in desiding what will be researched.
skipper posted 02-14-99 12:43 PM ET
If you are going to develop "scenarios" for this game, directed technology would be useful. To have events happen depending on the tech is what scenarios are about. What else are you going to base your scenario on? You can't predict if a war is going to happen, if the person playing is peaceful. The great modpacks from CIVII depended on events happening at a certain time. No directed technology, then no "scenarios" only campaigns.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Blind or picked research?
dirwulf	posted 02-12-99 10:49 PM ET How are you all playing the game? Using Blind Research, or picking the next technology to research? Does anyone know the way the game was intended to be played, blind or picked? This has REALLY been bugging me. I'm so used to Civ II, but I kinda like the concept of blind research, which I believe is actually the intended way to play the game. Opinions?
TheClockKing	posted 02-12-99 11:39 PM ET I like to be able to pick my research type and thus use this system. To me it is also more realistic. If I was a great leader and being overrun by enemies I would not tell my scientists to go develop something in the field of conquer, I would tell them that they will make my military more able to defend themselves or else. Today and in the future most things that are created scientifically are things that the scientists set out to create and not the serendipity inventions of the old. This is just my opinion though.
Hex	posted 02-13-99 02:58 AM ET Actually picking isn't realistic (to my mind) because how can you tell the scientists to invent something that you haven't inveted yet... But you could tell them give me something to wage war with...
Schole	posted 02-13-99 09:45 AM ET I agree. I think Blind Research is the default and better way (in realistic sense) of presenting research in a strategy game. And if you read the manual carefully there is a random factor in "picked" research too - the list of available techs is random and doesn't always show the full amount of techs that you can research.
Schole	posted 02-13-99 09:46 AM ET And one more point - I play a game to challenge myself - since Blind Research is harder, I like it
TheClockKing	posted 02-13-99 11:12 PM ET Two points first about realism. Hex you would be right, in my opinion if this game simulated the past where most inventions and scientific discoveries were discovered by luck or accident. This game though simulates the future. Today and in the future scientific research does not exist in a void but rather as a part of our society. In the past discoveries were usually made by individuals but these days they are done mainly by businesses and other giant groups of people that seek to fill a need. That is a key point. These days scientists have knowledge of what they are researching and what they want to do with it when developed. The people in charge of these groups pretty much deside what they are going to research. They don't of coarse say you will develope X but instead say that a need in society needs to be filled and the it is the scientists job to fill that need. In Alpha Centauri if your cities were being overrun by other forces you would not tell you scientists that there was a need in society for a new military application but rather that there is a need for better armor or prehaps P.S.I. defense. This is my opinion on this point. As to the contention that it is more difficult to play this game with blind research it depends on who you play. Playing the beleivers and yes it will be harder, use UoP and it is not more difficult as you are usually getting a tech every 1-4 turns. Well that concludes my opinions on this matter for now.
TheClockKing	posted 02-13-99 11:14 PM ET Sorry about the spelling and gramor errors in the above statement.
ThunderAxe	posted 02-13-99 11:30 PM ET Well, I ran my first 2 games using the default setting (blind) but after playing each about 50 turns, I switched back to the ol' tried and true "pick your own" ala Civ II
Prerogative	posted 02-13-99 11:36 PM ET I myself am a Blind player. Not only is it more challanging and realistic, but when I finally get the dagnabbed game I'll have an upper-hand over non-blind players. ClockKing, I beg to differ. Yes, we know terminology now. "Biology" "Chemistry" "Astronomy" "Atomic," whatever. But it's just terminology. We have made names for things we don't understand, but we still don't understand them. I can walk up to some scientist guy and say "Hey, guy, America needs a better justice system, make me a lie detector that never fails." Yes, ClockKing, I can TELL him that. But CAN he do it? Probably not. I'm sure Greek philosphers asked each other to discover a way to fly, or a way to live forever. But it never happened. Many things have been made by accident, even today. Right now we can order, and have something done, only in our own field of knowledge. But the only way we know of to create a whole new field of research is to just stumble flat upon it. Example: We have theories about time travel. We have no idea how to preform time travel. What can we do to improve our knowledge of time travel? Get some geniuses together and have them listen to Christopher Hawkins over and over again while staring at abunch of clocks? Doubtful, it's more likely we'll have to get some people together on a rickety Klingon Bird of Prey and throw it at the sun, just like they did in Star Trek. But this is just my own opinion.
TheClockKing	posted 02-14-99 12:05 AM ET Prerogative: Yes I know that many things are still discovered by chance, what I am saying though is more and more people research things with one particular goal in mind. They see something that needs correcting or fixing and go about to solve this problem. This does take time though. I'm not saying that I could go up to a scientist and tell him to invent a method for time travel as that is currently not a reality. I would argue with that example though because in using that example to illistrate how blind research is better you would have to say that under a blind research system this tech. would be possible.
Prerogative	posted 02-14-99 12:25 AM ET Well, yes, ClockKing, things are also discovered with a particular mean in mind. But that in and of itself is not new to our age. Europeans wanted ways to kill things better: Europeans made guns. The idea is, people always think that things are getting more succinct, and then some bozo comes along and screws it all up. Right now, as I examplified, we know some things about quite a few fields. But we can only go so far in the said fields before somebody finds something new and world shattering about said field. In reality, it requires a combination of both. You can only go so far just telling the wisemen to sit around and think about stuff. In the same context, you can only figure out so much by throwing a rickety Klingon Bird of Prey at the sun (well... maybe not, but that's another subject.) Discovery (which could be defined as "Finding something new") allows the expansion of knowledge, and with the expansion of knowledge new discoveries can be made. Discovery doesn't always require accidents, of course, but you can't discover that much just by thinking about it. But I use Blind more just 'cause it's challenging
TheClockKing	posted 02-14-99 12:33 AM ET I agree 100% that it takes both methods for research to be accomplished. All I am saying though is that today the direct method is used sucessful more often than it was in the past. Also blind research does not necessarly make the game harder it really depends who you are using. Some races can afford to not be choosy about what tech they are researching as they will acquire 3 for every 1 another race gets, for this race though the game will become in essance more dificult. I use the UoP and can do well using blind research but I prefer to have the ultimate power in desiding what will be researched.
skipper	posted 02-14-99 12:43 PM ET If you are going to develop "scenarios" for this game, directed technology would be useful. To have events happen depending on the tech is what scenarios are about. What else are you going to base your scenario on? You can't predict if a war is going to happen, if the person playing is peaceful. The great modpacks from CIVII depended on events happening at a certain time. No directed technology, then no "scenarios" only campaigns.