Did they take the element of risk out researching techs in Civ3?

[Steve Clark]

In the Avault thread, we got off on a tangent when I brought the concern that Civ3 will force me research all/most? techs before I can "go" to the next age. I had thought with fewer techs, the decision of which one to research next would become more critical, thus affecting strategic gameplay. But it now sounds like that I got to research all/most? of the techs in the ancient age (for example) before I can get the ones that I want in the middle age. I mean, I don't care about historical accuracy of having an advance tech before I have an ancient one because it is all an abstract element anyway.

Remember the Warrior-Feudalism-Chivalry-Leadership line in Civ2? That was a strategic decision based on whether you were persuing a bloodlust or AC win. Now it seems it doesn't matter what you have to research next or what path to aim for because you have to get them all. Do you think that's a wise design decision? I love the idea of skipping or ignoring a tech (or several of them) because such a gameplay decision can have its advantages and disadvantages. Now it appears they are taking that element of risk out of our hands. Does this make sense at all?

[yin26]

I suppose it's one way to keep the player and AI closer in ability? Perhaps this is an SP method to keep things interesting?

[Stuie]

Originally posted by yin26
I suppose it's one way to keep the player and AI closer in ability? Perhaps this is an SP method to keep things interesting?

My thoughts exactly. By forcing the player to go back and pursue some non-military techs that could be skipped in Civ2, it allows the AI to remain on par with the human militarily. So even if the AI isn't all that much improved, it comes off looking better because the human is limited in tech research selection.

This doesn't bother me.

[CygnusZ]

It should be duly noted too that you don't need research the entire tech tree to get to the next age. For example, Communism is available in the industrial age, but yet you don't *NEED* Communism to advance to the modern era.

I wouldn't be so quick to say that this tree is less flexible than the Civ2 tree until we've actually gotten a full copy of the tree with all the "required technologies" tagged.

[Comrade Tribune]

I think they have taken a page out of Age of Empires here, with distinct 'eras' that affect all and everything, from the look of your civilization to the techs you can learn.

I rather like the idea at first sight, but only thorough playtesting will tell if it´s a real improvement. I plan to do that ASAP.

[Bisonbison]

Right now the era limits are appealing to me on game-abstraction grounds:

If the idea of individual techs is arbitrary, and if the knowledge and experience that they imply is much more complicated/interrelated than the game can represent through prerequisites, then I think that the era requirements are a good way of hedging towards realism.

There are obviously a lot of ways you could prevent a civ from overextending its technical reach, but this seems a pretty intuitive one.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Firaixs headquaters "Curses! Them apolytonians can get to Alpha Centauri by 1 AD. We can't. Lets make them have to research all techs so they can't fly so early."

[Sarxis]

I like it though- really does break up the eras much better.
Makes the tech tree more.. 'interesting' too.

[yin26]

As I re-think my previous post a bit...it ALSO means the comp will have to get all the requisite techs in order to advance, too. But where this might actually fall in the comp's favor is in the early game with streamlined build orders (at least until human players figure this out themselves) such that the comp can get ahead of you in the age race and, therefore, tech by mid-game ... giving you some kind of fight to reach the late stages.

Hard to say...

[Pyrodrew]

Option

It's an intriguing idea & will probably have it's advantages & disadvantages. However, this really should be set up as an option which we can disable/enable. I suppose the editor might allow you the option to define the requirements for the Ages a little more, but would that be only for a map or would it work for any game?

[Earthling7]

Interesting thoughts. I guess they're trying to eliminate the "want-public-transport-better-research-the-wheel" scenario. That was a bit silly. This will likely feel more realistic.

I also wonder how this interacts with the new espionage. As I've heard, stealing a tech every turn is now virtually impossible.

[Urban Ranger]

It does make sense in terms of realism. Why could a player charge ahead with a particular research when other aspects of his nation are a couple of eras behind?

Yin,

What "streamlined building?"

[Sava]

I am going to enjoy the era restricted tech research. MORE REALISM MUHAHAHAHA

I really disliked skipping techs in eras because the game was too easy on deity.

[yin26]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Yin,

What "streamlined building?"

Oh, sorry: There is probably a kind of optimized set of build orders for any given set of circumstances. Realizing that the guys at Firaxis have several hundred games under their belts, they could program an early-game AI that maximizes every turn better than a human player could ... at least until we learn the game well enough to at least match (and probably surpass at some point) that efficiency.

To help things a challenge, of course, Firaxis should add updated AI info in each patch that draws from the latest, greatest strategies being put out by top players. There WILL be optimized build order for given maps, given civs, given resources, etc., and if Firaxis were keen to do so, they could keep track of it and slowly develop a wicked AI over time.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Earthling7
Interesting thoughts. I guess they're trying to eliminate the "want-public-transport-better-research-the-wheel" scenario. That was a bit silly. This will likely feel more realistic.

I also wonder how this interacts with the new espionage. As I've heard, stealing a tech every turn is now virtually impossible.

I agree on both counts.