Aquitaine wrote:
It should never be necessary for a player to deal with a number like 141.41, or 8.41743. Not in the game and not in the encycolpedia. I'd be willing to go as far as a 0.5 increment, but after that, you get into the realm of 'needing a computer to do the math' which runs afoul of KISS.
The important distinction is that we can have all the simple math we want, even such that it would take a person a heinously long time to run a turn. But a person should be able to easily do all the math involved. If you -need- a computer to actually do the calculations, then the player has much less of an idea what's happening, since (s)he is no longer anywhere near as able to figure out what's going on.
Well, krikkitone's suggesting that we say +1 = a 10% improvement, and then apply that compound, so that the +1 that moves you from +8 to +9 is as big a deal (10% of what you got at +8 ) as the +1 that moves you from +1 to +2 (which is 10% of what you got at +1).
The way I see it, that simplifies the thinking a player must do, he knows what comparative effect bonuses and penalties have immediately, no matter what he's getting at the moment.
Compare that to the Civ approach where bonuses add linearly, e.g. I have four +10% bonuses, making +40%, so my 100 output world gives 140, if I get another 10% bonus I'd get 150, meaning it actually makes 7.14% difference, If I were a player I'd be pissed off, after all why has this 10% bonus only given me 150, not 154!. So to work out the value of any bonus to me, I'd need to know what the base value was, and how many other bonuses of what kind I'd got. Urrrghhh.
P.s. as a general point, I think there is a fundamental difference between "needing a calculator to do the maths correct to the third decimal place, but you can approximate it in your head" and "needing a computer to even get close".