Why Technology Sucks In Civ Iii

[volcanohead]

Nice one LaRusso

Thanks, as always, for your contribution La Russo. A truly welcome new slant on the real issues involved here. It is indeed a fortunate forum we have, with such minds sharing their wisdom and experience.

Tell us, I pray, do share your enlightened and indubitably more reasonable veiwpoint on the pros and cons of the tech tree. I'd be delighted to hear you thoughts.

Tip: Why don't you make your 1311th post something other than spam?

V

[Venger]

Re: Give the guy a break

Originally posted by volcanohead
I think we should give Venger a break.

He may be homophobic and ill-educated,

Nice.

I've a theory based on what I've seen in the game... some ideas are good (if unrealistic, e.g. resources and trade) and well deployed, others are just stupid (e.g. tech tree) and show a really astounding lack of creativity on the part of Firaxis.

Preach on brother...

These observations are consistent with the bouncing of the project from one bunch of people with good ideas to another bunch of people with no ideas, before the game was finished.

Can I get an AMEN?!?!?!

I wonder if the departure of Reynolds et al. occurred before issues like the tech tree were resolved...

I think that departure is what made Civ3 into CTP (although having patched and modded CTP2, that may be insulting CTP...CTP2 look like it has promise). It's almost as if the people who finished out the game really hadn't been either fans or players of Civ2 or others of the genre and just kind of slapped it together based on a neophytic interpretation of what we "should want".

That bloody SS party room for laser is just pathetic.

Bingo...

I play the game, and I enjoy the game. But there are such inanities which really should not have made it through that I really think there must have been a DISASTER in Firaxis during development.

I honestly began to dread playing Civ3 in the later times - for all the other reasons we've all gone over. I will of course give the patch a shot, as well as the recommendation of another thread - play 16 Civs on a small map.

Perhaps the patch will help - on that issue remember they've had since the game went gold to work on that, and surely they knew a lot of the issues at that point. I mean, they must have beta tested it - right? But I'm preparing myself for another disappointment.

Well, they could get it right, or just blow it again. But when standing at the southbound end of a northbound horse, what do you expect to see?

Venger

[Antonin]

Originally posted by Venger
I originally held out hope for the game, but as soon as I found myself in the modern tech era - lame city. Civ3 in the late game is seriously disappointing, to the point of being an unplayable mess...

Sell your copy on E-bay, then. At least you'll get most of your money back and then you can find a game that will better suit your tastes.

[Fidel]

Re: Nice one LaRusso

Originally posted by volcanohead
Thanks, as always, for your contribution La Russo. A truly welcome new slant on the real issues involved here. It is indeed a fortunate forum we have, with such minds sharing their wisdom and experience.

Tell us, I pray, do share your enlightened and indubitably more reasonable veiwpoint on the pros and cons of the tech tree. I'd be delighted to hear you thoughts.

Tip: Why don't you make your 1311th post something other than spam?

V

okay, let's see what are the high standards you set in your 13th post

some ideas are good (if unrealistic, e.g. resources and trade) and well deployed, others are just stupid (e.g. tech tree) and show a really astounding lack of creativity on the part of Firaxis.

wow! very insightful analysis! tech tree is 'just stupid'. i need not type much then.

some ideas are good and well deployed, among them the tech tree which does not allow you anymore to have rocketry without pottery. this shows a sound judegement of a firaxis team. i like having less techs, the game was too long anyway.

keep 'contributing' to the 'real issues'.

[volcanohead]

Re: Re: Nice one LaRusso

La Russo,

I'd have thought the onus in a forum such as this is on the old hands (King and above) to produce insightful and novel points of view on criticisms/observations made by the new members. Obviously this is too much effort for you, given the large number of one line smiley posts you produce to keep up your post count.

But enough of this - back to the thread. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) believe that a simple transplant of the tech tree (with some minor modifications) is a truly innovative and original move?

I am not suggesting that more tech's are better, simply that a different approach could have been made. In fact, how would it be if there were fewer techs, but with each one giving a unique and real benefit and heavily branched so as to give you a real strategic choice in which line of research you take...

It's also a shame that it seems to be a very rare game when the units produced by the final techs are usuable before the finish, e.g. Aegis cruiser. Perhaps a solution to this could have been examined (apart from turning off space and cultural victories).

Like I said, I like the game - a lot. It's proving to be very addictive and the tournament on this site is extremely good fun. But like many people who have been looking forward so much to this game I feel like there have been more than a few missed opportunities.

V

[Fidel]

Re: Re: Re: Nice one LaRusso

Originally posted by volcanohead
La Russo,

I'd have thought the onus in a forum such as this is on the old hands (King and above) to produce insightful and novel points of view on criticisms/observations made by the new members. Obviously this is too much effort for you, given the large number of one line smiley posts you produce to keep up your post count.

But enough of this - back to the thread. Do you (or anyone else for that matter) believe that a simple transplant of the tech tree (with some minor modifications) is a truly innovative and original move?

I am not suggesting that more tech's are better, simply that a different approach could have been made. In fact, how would it be if there were fewer techs, but with each one giving a unique and real benefit and heavily branched so as to give you a real strategic choice in which line of research you take...

It's also a shame that it seems to be a very rare game when the units produced by the final techs are usuable before the finish, e.g. Aegis cruiser. Perhaps a solution to this could have been examined (apart from turning off space and cultural victories).

Like I said, I like the game - a lot. It's proving to be very addictive and the tournament on this site is extremely good fun. But like many people who have been looking forward so much to this game I feel like there have been more than a few missed opportunities.

V

1. i do not care about the post count. it is just that i see to many threads a day. i guess i have to get used to that
2. i do prefer less techs, that is true. too many techs make my sense of accomplishment rather weak....i hated CTP because i never knew what i was researching. in civ3 i now have a very good grasp of what gives what and what i can build with that. IMHO, taht is very important, not to get lost in the game.
3. endgame research and build ratios DO need tweaking. spaceship build is too easy, which provides for a very quick finish and it is not logical to reasearch SDI before you send spaceship to AC (illogical IMHO). Techs are too cheap in modern time and some units are obsolete before you properly use them. this, and a wimpey diplo victory are my main gripes. not insignificant ones. i like spaceship video, but the omission of the UN vote video of some kind is reallly a let down.
4. strategic branching out....nice idea but i must admit that that would mean non-tradeable techs or otherwise those would be quickly traded too and the original benefit lost.


so as you can see i like the game, i play it, i do not think it is perfect. i just guess i get too nervous with all this 'killer warrior' crowd

[Moraelin]

But on the other hand has such wonders as aircraft carriers before flight, granaries without pottery (a.k.a., the Pyramids), and so on. And with some wonderful insights, such as (unless my memory fails me) needing COMMUNISM to build a police station, and then seeing that a strong police presence doesn't even reduce corruption at all.

Plus such enlightened dependencies as needing RUBBER to make infantry. (Not mechanized infantry. Just plain old late 19'th century infantry.) WTH for? Condoms? Or the equally enlightened needing OIL to make Paratroopers, which DON'T come with their own aircraft anyway.

Besides, why DO you need pottery to make rockets? Unless my memory suddenly fails me, the ancient Chinese could already make simple rockets for fireworks. I don't think there were any ceramics involved.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Moraelin
But on the other hand has such wonders as aircraft carriers before flight, granaries without pottery (a.k.a., the Pyramids), and so on. And with some wonderful insights, such as (unless my memory fails me) needing COMMUNISM to build a police station, and then seeing that a strong police presence doesn't even reduce corruption at all.

Plus such enlightened dependencies as needing RUBBER to make infantry. (Not mechanized infantry. Just plain old late 19'th century infantry.) WTH for? Condoms? Or the equally enlightened needing OIL to make Paratroopers, which DON'T come with their own aircraft anyway.

Besides, why DO you need pottery to make rockets? Unless my memory suddenly fails me, the ancient Chinese could already make simple rockets for fireworks. I don't think there were any ceramics involved.

well u can send those simple rockets to outer space immediatelly. why not really reasearch rocketry just after mathematics.

infantry is not riflemen. infantry = 20 century, riflemen = 19th. imagine support units, trucks, logistics, etc.


as for pyramids, grannaries, etc. well, pretty much all wonders are BS when it comes to realism, but they are fun and that is why we like them in civ1, civ2 and civ3. i immensely enjoy hardcore board games a la empires in arms and other grognard feasts, but what i primarily look for in civ serial is FUN.

paras are abstracted with their planes. adding transport planes would just increase dificulty without adding any fun.

[carioca]

Re: Why Technology Sucks In Civ III

Originally posted by shamrock

Furthermore, some weird connections and prereqs remain or have been added. How can you build a catapult (mathematics) without using a wheel?

Make a Trebuchet instead and drag it around on a sledge?

Originally posted by shamrock
How can you distribute currency when you haven’t developed bronze working or iron working?

Make Copper, Silver or Gold coins?

Originally posted by shamrock
How can you create destroyers and aircraft when you don’t even understand electricity?!

Coal fired boilers and alcohol powered sterling engines?

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by LaRusso
well u can send those simple rockets to outer space immediatelly. why not really reasearch rocketry just after mathematics.

Actually, no. To actually send rockets into outer space you'd need at the very least electronics, rocket fuel, and a whole bunch of other discoveries. But pottery? Gimme a break. There's absolutely nothing in there that absolutely has to be ceramics, and couldn't be a different kind of composite material.

infantry is not riflemen. infantry = 20 century, riflemen = 19th. imagine support units, trucks, logistics, etc.

You're confusing plain old infantry with motorized infantry. Throughout BOTH world wars there has been an awful lot of marching on foot. And a lot of using horses to pull supplies and artillery.

Either way, logistics are well beyond the scope of Civ 3. It doesn't have the faintest idea of supply lines, and if it was like in Civ 3, the German divisions could survive for 1000 years trapped at Stalingrad. Plus, the same logistics would have to apply to supplying your tanks with ammo. Or for getting those luxuries into your towns in the modern day. And so on. I fail to see why ONLY infantry has to be slapped with that requirement.

as for pyramids, grannaries, etc. well, pretty much all wonders are BS when it comes to realism, but they are fun and that is why we like them in

Noone said that we want the wonders taken out. But let's even forget about the granary effect. You can build the Pyramids before discovering Ceremonial Burial. Someone remind me what the pyramids were, please. Oh, right, they were the place where the ruler was (very ceremonially) buried. Complete with supplies for the afterlife.

Either way, the point was that I wouldn't have minded some changes to the tech tree and dependencies. As they are, there are FAR worse screw ups than than merely having a world where they discovered the rockets without discovering ceramics. The whole thing really doesn't feel like there was much thought put into it. In fact, it looks like something slapped together in a hurry, and without even the minimum of research.

And I DO realize that not all people like a longer game, but I would have liked to have an _option_ to have a better and more detailed tech tree.

[Sandman]

One of the best things about civ is that you're not researching 'giant tank mk3' or 'bigger crossbow', but things like pottery and electricity, which I think is much more endearing.

However, in civ3, there are many more techs which do nothing, or only give a wonder, or lead nowhere. Researching is more of a chore with rubbish like this clogging up the tech tree.

The 'ages' system is pretty pointless; why not just increase the number of prerequistes for each tech?

[Nadexander]

Re: Why Technology Sucks In Civ III

Originally posted by shamrock
And because of the hard-coded graphical interface, none of the changes I make in the editor show up in this interface. Very irritating.

Actually i think i can come-up with some code off the top of my head that would allow for the tech-tree picture to be dynamically created from the senario setting files (if you've ever used a hardware design CAD tool like Xilinx to draw wiring diagrams you would know i mean. actually im in the lab right now and should be working on it instead of trolling the message boards) If firaxis was serious about being friendly to the MOD community they would do well to give this a serious thought.

On a side note, about the carrier snafu, i think it has something to do with the fact that the flight box on the tech tree is full, so they would have had to make it bigger to fit in the picture of the aircraft carrier

[Nadexander]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Actually, no. To actually send rockets into outer space you'd need at the very least electronics, rocket fuel, and a whole bunch of other discoveries. But pottery? Gimme a break. There's absolutely nothing in there that absolutely has to be ceramics, and couldn't be a different kind of composite material.

Pick up a copy of Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" (won the pulitzer prize a couple years back. Its how the coincidences of geography resulted in europe getting ahead of the rest of the world. one of the most interesting books ive ever read.) The storage and transportation of food was historically essential for the development of more advanced social structures. Kings, priests, philosphers, warriors, merchants, etc. etc. came to be because not everyone had to work in the fields to get food. Pottery is key in developing a food surplus. Without pottery you wouldnt be able to get out of the early ancient age.
On a side note, i really like the age system, although not neccesarily with the placement of techs in the tree as they are right now. At certain points in our history certain technologies combined in a way to make a fundamental change in what is possible. I especially like that industrial era technologies are strictly seperated from renaissance ones, being as for a country to industrialize they need a certain technological base.

[Moraelin]

It's easy to imagine a scenario where a civilization used different ways to store their food, that didn't require baking mud to get a container. E.g., if they discovered weaving first, they could get a sack, which to this day is far more useful for transporting cereal than ceramic pots are.

Either way, it's not that I'm opposed to having to discover pottery or anything. (I would indeed like to have multiple paths through the tech tree, but then I can also live without that.) It was just making a point that IMHO the Civ 3 tech tree is FUBAR even with or without ages. I mean, sure, ages are nice, but if everything within an age is still in the wrong places, you've just split one screwed-up tree into four smaller screwed-up trees.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Actually, no. To actually send rockets into outer space you'd need at the very least electronics, rocket fuel, and a whole bunch of other discoveries. But pottery? Gimme a break. There's absolutely nothing in there that absolutely has to be ceramics, and couldn't be a different kind of composite material.

I believe large rocket exhausts are made out of some kind of composite with ceramics, because ceramics can withstand heat so well.

-mario