Realistic Research?

[AreliusMaximus]

Reading Tattilla's thread "learn by doing" inspired me to post this. A couple days ago I was thinking about Civ's research system. You choose what advancements you want to get the desired outcome.

Coming from a Research and Development background myself I thought this was an interesting way to handle technical progress. But it's somewhat unrealistic. In R&D you spend a lot of time going down paths that ultimately lead to no where and bear no fruit. Sometimes you get lucky and create something great by accident.

I was wondering if this sort of random research pattern would make sense in Civ. As a player, you would only choose a broad category of research. The more you put behind research, the more likely you'll get an advancement. But no guaranteed timeline, and no way to direct the exact technology that would be reaearched.

Would this be an interesting modification? Would players not like the element of randomness involved in the tech tree?

Just some passing thoughts I had. One day I might be inspired to mod Civ IV and this was just a crazy idea I came up with.

[Solver]

That was one of the features in Alpha Centauri . All techs belong to one of the four categories: Conquer, Discover, Build, Explore. You could choose, when setting up a game, how you wanted your research. The default option was select tech and research. The other option was "blind research" - you could choose to emphasize one or more of these four categories, but the technology you received was random. Although emphasizing a category increased your chance of getting a tech from that category.

I usually played with directed research, but blind research was a very interesting thing to play with for a different game. I think it would also be an interesting variant of Civ4 .

[AreliusMaximus]

Maybe I should play those older Civs before I go reinventing the wheel.

[Blake]

I liked Blind Research in SMAC. I remember my first couple of games actually, I was like "WHOA! This is confusing! Oh cool, I can use Blind Research and wont have to decide ." It made the game less overwhelming.

As a skilled player I enjoyed the Blind Research to add unpredictability and to bust the cookie cutter, instead of using sub-optimal strategies just to be obtuse.

[Dis]

blind research could be interesting in SMAC

I suppose it could work in civ. You just have to divide the tech tree up a little more. Though it can easily fall into divisions anyways. military, social/govermental, religious.

But lets be realistic. Any serious research in ancient times is just silly. I'm not that versed in the history of scientific progress. But I seriously doubt there were any serious govermental funded efforts towards research until after the dark ages.

Instead, **** just happened. People got lucky, entrepreneurs came up with some ingenious inventions. They weren't paid by the goverment. They did it for personal profit.

[Thomas Hobbes]

Originally posted by Dis
(...) People got lucky, entrepreneurs came up with some ingenious inventions. They weren't paid by the goverment. They did it for personal profit.

Which is, probably even to a higher degree, still the case today, right?
Except maybe the warfare-technologies invented during WWI, WWII and the cold war (like radar, the internet), whose progress was probably accelerated by government war spending.

Or do you have those huge government research facilities in your country, where thousands of inventors and engineers are payed by the government?
Personally, I've never heard of a government whose task is to do research.

[Dis]

perhaps in Soviet Russia it was like that. Don't know for sure, never lived there during the cold war, thankfully.

But yes, in my country, and I'm sure most countries the goverment does not conduct research directly (it does contribute money to private research organizations, however). It's the nature of capitalism. Not to mention the goverment is innefficient and pretty much inept at everything it does. Nearly everything is done by private companies. Some notable exceptions might be experiments conducted by NASA. But those experiments are thought up and analyzed by private scientists.

[Adagio]

Blind research could be interesting to have in Civ (but the default option should be direct research). I liked how it was in SMAC, but I probably wouldn't play with that option on every game (more like 1 out of 5 games I'd say)

[Thedrin]

It'd be a nice idea to include in the game as an option but I'm curious how it would affect lightbulbing. Would great people discover specific technologies or would they grant a large amount of beakers to your research?

[Saurus]

I too enjoyed using the "blind reserach"-option in SMAC.

However, I wonder what that would be like when playing CIV IV in such a way.
What if blind research would prevent you from getting pottery or writing for instance thus preventing you from building more than 2 cities (otherwise economy would collapse at Emperor +) up until all available land is gone.

To a certain degree some kind of blind research would be fun. It could also include randomness in how much exactly a tech would cost (like the MOO2 model)

[Diadem]

But true research isn't blind, and has never been blind.

Scientists usually have a pretty good idea of what they want to achieve in their research before starting it. Of course they make many mistake on their road to this goal. They indeed spend a lot of time on paths that ultimately lead nowhere. But that doesn't mean they are researching blind. They know where they want to go, they just don't know how to get there yet.

In the game, this is respresenting by every tech costing a great amount of beakers, instead of just one. If scientists never made mistakes every tech in the game would cost 1 beaker, we would research future technology in about 3 turns and the game would be very boring

Of course in the real world a scientist doesn't sit down and think: "Well today I'm going to invent Steam Power so that I can invent Railroads next and after that combustion". No. He doesn't look *that* far ahead.

But he does sit down and think "Hmm, I know hot water expands. If I boil water in an enclosed space that should lead to a pressure buildup. I think I'm going to see if I can use that as a locomotive force". And after a few years, a great many mistakes and a lot of hard work, behold, we have the steam engine.

This isn't blind research. It's very focussed. He knows in advance what he is going to discover. He does not know how, and he does not know how long it will take, and he may not even know if it's possible, but he does know what he is trying to achieve.

[Thedrin]

But true research isn't blind, and has never been blind.

For scientists, researchers, engineers, and inventors - sure. But for governments as part of strategic planning? Not as often.

[eris]

Originally posted by Thomas Hobbes


Which is, probably even to a higher degree, still the case today, right?
Except maybe the warfare-technologies invented during WWI, WWII and the cold war (like radar, the internet), whose progress was probably accelerated by government war spending.

Or do you have those huge government research facilities in your country, where thousands of inventors and engineers are payed by the government?
Personally, I've never heard of a government whose task is to do research.

I worked at NASA for 10 years. The specific facility was a super-computer complex for research into aerodynamics. You see, only part of what NASA does is the space program. It also does research about planes and helicopters and such. I am not saying that there wasn't some of the stuff that could be applied to military air vehicles, but most of it was about commercial craft and the whole science of digital simulation as compared to actual wind tunnels. Before that, I worked at a National Science Foundation supported facility doing computer work about weather, with scienteists all over the country connecting up and doing whatever they could make the computers do. It sure seemed like government funded research to me!

Otherwise, you can look at it as how much of you Cib's social values prioritize science (lots of inidividuals trying out improvements in living conditions, weapons, etc) even if there are no "scientists" to speak of until later years. Researchin Pottery can be considered to be a series of efforts, first to form bowls and cups (and in my case, every pottery effort turns into the default ashtray) then sealable bottles, then large urns to store or ship perishable goods in, thus boosting both health (Granary) and the ability to trade goods and make money (Cottages). Each ancient tech can be viewed that way if you wish. It seems a very applicable abstraction to me. Your imaginational mileage may vary.

[rah]

In MP games, I'd like the catagory research concept. This would add more of the surprise factor in MP games. Most of the exploits or preferred tech paths are known to all so there is already a race for certain ones. There's only one oracle or pyramids. Making it a bit more unsure when techs might show would definately be more interesting.

Do you still try for that early religion knowing you may not get the tech you're thinking.

Rome may not discover iron as early as they'd like.

Adding a bit more randomness would keep MP more interesting competitive early on.

For SP, a lousy idea.

[Dis]

and really, how can you research music? I won't even go into that kind of realism. Yes I know research in this game should be treated more abstractly. It's a collection of ideas that takes time to develop.