Redundant techs and random dead ends...

[Slingshot]

In Civ II and CTP, gunpowder was a pivotal technology. It allowed for the musketeer unit, and a big jump in military muscle.

In real life, the Chinese had gunpowder for a long time before Europeans. I think that the Chinese were smart enough - yet they never seemed to make the connection between gunpowder and warfare.

I would like to see a tech tree that has random limitations in application. Say for one game, gunpowder yields all sorts of weapons. In another, gunpowder is only good for show, and the way to get musketeers or cannons is to discover, say, mechanized warfare + chemistry.

I'm expecting nobody will like this idea, but there it is anyways. What I am thinking about is a way to add more uncertainty (and replayability) to the game.

[MidKnight Lament]

have you read the ideas in the list v.2.0? (excuse my ignorance if you created half of them). this was the only part of the list that i bothered to read all of. i found it really interesting, and it got me excited about the possibilities for civ 3.

an advance tree set in concrete is both boring and unrealistic. i don't know that gunpowder could be anything but pivotal, but there should definitely be variable probablities that one advance will lead to another. of course, the progression from one advance to another still has to make sense, but if the idea of points being gathered from a number of previously known advances to form the new one is implemented, then different weightings could be given for each particular game.

excuse me if i just lost 90% of you. read the ideas in the list on tech tree. there's some really good ones. i'll be disappointed if the tree uses the same old principles in civ 3.

to be honest, i've been surprised that this is the first time the tech tree and advances in general have been brought up for a long time.


[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited February 28, 2000).]

[Youngsun]

Chinese knew exactly what kind of impact gunpowder might bring and they had sealed the secret for a long time for their own good.

They had all sorts of appliance of this newly found secret ranging from siege mortar to handgun. But they were not very enthusiastic about improving those weapons more lethal because they simply did not need to do that so long as they could keep their hegemony in Asia with their traditional weaponry. Many innovations were buried just like falling leaves and their firearms status reamined quite primitive.

Europeans by contrast were desperate to keep military superiority over one another so their innovations were readily adopted which triggered more new revolutionary ideas about firearms.

If the game can simulate this kind of relationship between tech. and innovation with need, that will add more sense of realism and fun.

ie)
1.Discovery of Gunpowder
2.Check my civ's military superiority against my neighbours
3.If my civ is still stronger with current weaponry, no need to innovate
4.If not more innovations are required

So when we discover prime mil tech. like gunpowder we might have the tech with no further innovation with our mil superiority.
In that way some smaller nations or moderate sized nations can have some advantages. Even when we are quite stong but engaged with other civs the need for further innovation will increase.

I am not sure how this will be implemented into the game. Maybe no musketeer is allowed to build for no-need civs and musketeer can be built for need civs?
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 28, 2000).]

[Atahualpa]

Youngsun: I already hear the complaints by a thousand users: "Hey, I just discovered, Gunpowder and now I cant build/recruit musketeers!" And when you tell them that you can only build musketeers, when you are weaker than they will flame you to death.
When I discovered something, I can build something thats the ground principle. I wouldnt dare change that!

But for a random tech tree, I am all in favour!!
Or why random, lets say at the start of the game one out of lets say 5 tech trees is choosen!

ATa

[The diplomat]

I think it would be cool if certain events could trigger the discovery of a new tech. For example, when you find gold on the map, there would be a chance that you discover "currency". This would represent the spontaneous idea. In this case, finding gold, which a precious metal, made your people think about using it to buy things, thus introducing the concept of currency.

The way it would work is that the pivotal techs would be discovered only through a special trigger event (or through trade of course) but the other techs would be discovered through normal research.

This would make things more interesting. For example, let's say that France is wining the war agianst Spain. They are fighting with medieval technology (ie knights, spearmen etc...) Spain does something which triggers the discovery of gunpowder. Suddenly, Spain would get a message like:
"we have discovered this new substance that we believe could be used as a powerful weapon. Should we proceed to research its applications?" If the player clicked yes the civ would research the musketeer unit, which as we said would shift the balance of power, back in favor of Spain. This illustrates how the concept could affect a civ3 game. A civ that was far ahead would not be garanteed to win.

A different idea but one that I'll post here before I forget: war should add a small bonus to research (for example, +20% faster research) to represent the fact that war promotes faster research. As we saw in WW2, a lot of new techs, which later had civilian applications, were discovered because the countries were trying to find new weapons.



------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited February 28, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited February 28, 2000).]

[Slingshot]

Thanks MidKnight. Yes, I have read the list, but the memory gets fuzzy after a while...

I think that different weighings should be given for different games. In fact, I think that it should be civilization-dependant.
Some techs are pivotal regardless of the way people view the world - nuclear power, for example. Others make it big only because they appeal to a certain culture. I would like to see more of that in Civ III.

One should really be able to turn a band of settlers into either an Utopia or a Blade Runner / Fifth Element society... Both are very different, and each has its price. And it should not be easy to switch between the two extremes once you get there.

I really wonder if anyone at Firaxis or Activision is reading our threads... I don't want promises to integrate them, just a "hello, good/bad idea" would be a great boost from time-to-time.

The diplomat is full of good ideas. Your thoughts also add an element of interactivity between the civ leader and his/her civ. Good job! The war=production bonus idea might get more attention if it was given its own thread.

[Slingshot]

You're probably right, Mark_Everson.

I will take a look at Clash again.

I don't want to ruffle anyone's fur, but Clash doesn't seem to get the same publicity that the mainstream civs get. Do you think this is because many think it is a little to complex to be any fun?

I can't say any more until I try the demo.

[Mark_Everson]

Slingshot:

I think we don't get any press because we're an amateur group that has no budget and no track record

If the complexity makes Clash not fun then we'll have failed. But that's what our demos are for... anything that isn't Fun will get pitched. And we have already had people playing late into the night with demo 4 which is about 5% of the way to the real game

Sorry to the others, I now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 28, 2000).]

[OrangeSfwr]

How about conscription+gunpowder give you the musketeers unit. And then another advance for riflemen? Just an idea.

Here's another...

Why should the Roman's fight with Elephants? Why should the Indians fight with chariots? There should be a way to differentiate between Civs with different Units depending on the tech choices they make. Again, just an idea. Open for suggestions...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Slingshot]

Thank you, Mark_Everson.

OrangeSfwr: I concur! Why can't we have units specific to certain civs? Let's go one step further - elephant units are only available on some equatorial continents. Heh heh, I bet it is tough being a civ programmer!

[Mark_Everson]

I like most of these ideas, but face it, Firaxis isn't likely to listen. Civ is a working formula that IMO they aren't much interested in changing.

If you are sick of being largely ignored by Firaxis, there is an amateur civ project right here that could use your ideas and constructive criticism. We may be amatures, but the project will not be vaporware. You can check out our very limited but playable demo if you want to verify the progress for yourself.

If you are interested in more info, you can go straight to the _Clash of Civilzations_ web site at clash.apolyton.net, or go to our forum here at Apolyton. Our tech model already has most of the issues you are pushing in mind, although they are not all documented in the most recent version of the model. The discussion threads are long, so skimming is more in order.

If you come by, let us know what you think!

[Dienstag]

I woudn't mind reworking the whole science model. First, if we combined the features of SMAC and MOO2, then we wouldn't know what tech we're getting or when we're getting it. This is the most realistic scenario, and would make the game harder for everybody.

I'm picturing something like your scientists saying "Sire, we discovered this black powdery stuff that explodes. What do you want us to do next." And then you have something like these options:

You can say:
- "Good job, keep working on the mysteries of the natural world. We'll have it figured out any day now." or
- "Ummm...yeah. But what could we do with that?" or
- "That's the last straw. I'm withdrawing my research grant from you and I'm finally gonna give the people the entertainment they deserve. Do you like gladiator fights?"

The dialogue was mostly for humor (wouldn't it be nice?), but that's the basic idea. Maybe different scientists and thinkers could offer you proposals, which you could either accept or decline. The important idea here is that research is a risk (albeit one that usually pays off), and you have only rudimentary control over it.

My second idea (and this is pretty similar to what Slingshot said up there) is to loosen up the tech tree, so that numerous paths to the same point are possible and no one can research everything. This would help with civ individuality, and we might want to have a good number of very similar techs to be discovered. For example, with musketeers, there could be a bunch of different kinds of musketeers, with different combat, movement, and/or cost factors. Then if you discover the relatively weak, expensive musketeers you would have to choose between trying to get better musketeers, or just work on other stuff that might eventually result in stealth bombers or something.

I also like Youngsun's idea to distinguish between desperate, innovative civilizations and stagnant ones. This and the blind research with loose tech tree I think would make the game much more realistic and enjoyable.

And event triggered techs, or even event plus research triggered techs, like Availability of Horses (event) + Domestication and Shock Warfare (techs) = Horsemen (units). This trian of thought could lead to Tibetan Yak Warriors. I better stop now.

Slingshot- Yeah, if I had it my way it would be very tough to be a civ programmer. I wonder if they're hiring...

[Youngsun]

Hallo Ata

You completely got me wrong about this!
First of all, I mentioned that checking my military might then the need of further innovation would be decided based on how stong my nearby civs are or am I at war with other civs?, etc.

So if one of European countries discovered gunpowder then begins to produce musketeer unit, China would not simply rush into Europe to destroy that countries because of the frustration that they can not make musketeer unit. Asia and Europe was too distant to make such a decision until the improvement of transport tech. and communication tech. They(Chinese)simply would not know what's going on in Europe. So regional hegemony will play decisive role how the tech will make an impact on each civ.

For example, if Europe has no dominant civ and the competition is close to cut-throat, every civ in Europe will be able to have chance to make proper musketeer unit while in Asia, China keeps its supremacy over other civs so becomes quite complacent about keeping the supremacy thus the innovation will be buried.(they may produce musketeer unit but with some penalty on its performance)

So eventually many moderate sized civs on fierce competition will outperform hugh civs which has no worthy competitors. This will exactly show how Europe has achieved its supremacy on globe.

Some players tend to pick a civ because its starting position is quite distant from other civs or has huge chunk of land that offers not enough challenge. With this element of "fierce competition rewards you with leading edge tech.", many of them will be discouraged
to pick a civ which is isolated or distant from other civs.

Anyway the main point I was making was that if an civ gets more desperate about acquring specific tech, the more possibility to get the tech with further innovations.

Event-driven tech research is really nice idea. Many tech. were actually outcome of some sorts of event such as war.

German King tiger tank would not have chance to appear if there was no Barbarossa. When German panzer IV crews met T-34 they were stunned by the superior performance of T-34 so they made request to make new model to overcome the might of T-34. The result was Panther with well-sloped armour and wider track. King tiger has nothing in common with Tiger I in terms of main hull and track design it borrowed more from the design of Panther. The Russian too learned from the German about assault-gun so they could produce JSU,SU seriese which has no turret but armoured super structure at relatively cheaper cost. Besides we all learn from each other don't we?

[Slingshot]

For me, it is important to have the type of diplomatic model that encourages trading of resources and techs with other civs. I guess that would be called teamwork.

This was one area that I think CTP fell short: Few civs were as ready to form a peace treaty, and it was difficult to trade techs early on, because you needed to be on friendly terms AND have an embassy.

[korn469]

Youngsun

you have alot of good ideas! they have got me thinking...how about this...use a modified prototype system like in alpha centauri...

when your civ discovers a new technology
then a check is made by checking your sphere of influence

a sphere of influence is this, 5 times the speed of your fastest unit. then apply that distance like how borders are applied in SMAC

the check follows this preliminary flow chart

1. does your civ have the strongest military?
if no prototype cost is normal

2. does the second strongest military have at least 80% of your strength?
if yes prototype cost is normal

3. is your civ twice as strong as the second place civ?
if yes add 50% to cost of prototype

4. is your civ twice as powerful than the second and third place civ?
if yes add 100% to cost of prototype

5. is your civ more power than all of the other civs in your sphere of influence?
if yes add 150% to cost of prototype

6. is your civ twice as powerful as all of the other civs combined in your SoI?
if yes add 200% to cost of prototype

7. do no other civs exist in your sphere of influence?
if yes add 300% to cost of prototype

in addition i think that prototype costs should be higher than in SMAC, somewhere between +100 to +200 percent

so in that model your first unit could cost up to six times the cost of a normal unit...the same system could be applied to technology and everything

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]