is tech rate tied to map size?

[bvanevery]

I know that minerals costs for units get cheaper on smaller maps.  Is tech rate also made proportional to map size?  Recently I was made to wonder if my understanding of tech budgeting is woefully inadequate.  I went looking on the internet for answers, and came across the most bizarre demonstration of Transcending in 76 turns!  This person used a teeny weeny map to do it, 16x16.  Meanwhile I nowadays play on so-called "Enormous" maps, 80x160.  My research seems to drag, for instance it took me all day to get to Fusion Power.

[Buster's Uncle]

WOW.

-But didn't I say tech went faster w/ a tiny map when I urged you to try tiniest the game will do as a novelty-quick-easy AAR?  It definitely scales, else you'd never be able to win by MY2500 via Transcendence w/ only two or three bases generating tech...

[T-hawk]

demonstration of Transcending in 76 turns!

Hi, that's my site and my writeup.  Happy to discuss anything else about it.

Yes, tech cost is determined by map size.  The formula is proportional to the square root of the number of tiles on the map.  So the super-tiny 16x16 map comes to 28% of a standard size 40x80 map.

I also tried a slightly larger map, 18x20, because that is the smallest size where the bureaucracy-drones limit is 2 bases instead of 1; but the difference in tech cost between those was still enough that the smallest size came out faster.

There's also a discount to growth and industry on smaller map sizes -- but that is determined only by the designation you pick from the menu (Tiny is -20%, Small is -10%) and not by the physical size.  Any custom-size map doesn't get that discount.  For that speed run, I did try a Tiny map (24x48) to get that discount, but found out again that the difference in tech cost between that and the smallest map came out in favor of the smallest.

[bvanevery]

That writeup of yours is far out, man.  Makes me wonder how many turns it would take to nuke the whole place.

[gwillybj]

This is very interesting to me, taken in the other direction: Massive maps. Mine are 360x180.

• 360 x 180 = 64,800
• Square root of 64,800 = 254.556

How much should that affect the tech rate?
bvanevery and I have been conversing about my use of

• massive maps
• tech stagnation
• tech rate = 50

all together, in order to make my games last longer.

[T-hawk]

It's relative between map sizes.  A standard map is 40 x 80 = 3200 and the square root is 56.5.  Your massive map makes techs cost 4.3x as much as standard, on top of the stagnation modifier and your edited tech rate constant.

[Fibonacci]

Speaking of tech rates, I was talking with Buster's Uncle about doing a speed-run sort of game with a limited amount of "cheating" (as in things that don't result in "cheated" showing up on the final score).

(click to show/hide)

Save scumming to get desired battle outcomes/pod pops/forest/kelp expansions, abusing the ability rush buy "stockpile energy" in Yitzi's patch multiple times during a turn, and intentionally taking a dive by disbanding all the units on mission year zero to get a starting former and an extra 100 starting energy credits as CEO  ...

Random Map until I start with the ability move along rivers to pop 4 pods on mission year zero...

Huge Map(64x128), transcend, no "tech stagnation", no "do or die"

My current record for a diplomatic victory is MY2017.

If there's any interest/curiosity, I'd be happy to share the sequence of saves demonstrating why  's economy bonus combined with save scumming for comm frequencies is ridiculous.

[bvanevery]

I wouldn't play, but I'd watch with interest, particularly if the various cheats were detailed.

[gwillybj]

It's relative between map sizes.  A standard map is 40 x 80 = 3200 and the square root is 56.5.  Your massive map makes techs cost 4.3x as much as standard, on top of the stagnation modifier and your edited tech rate constant.

Thanks for that information. If I read you right:
(4.3 / .5 / .5) = (4.3 x 2 x 2) == Tech Cost of 17.2 x standard!