Announcement

**DarkCloud** · September 17, 2000, 21:06

Ack. Polytheism and Monotheism are not 'true' advances. Something else should give us War Elephants and Crusaders are nothing but Knights with a 'cause'.

**wernazuma** · September 17, 2000, 21:22

Sorry, maybe it’s my bad English, but I didn’t understand this very well:

quote:

Originally posted by Hannibal3 on 09-17-2000 04:43 PM
It is possible to research particular cartegory and receive the next tech unless another tech from another category is needed first. This eliminates the ridiculousness of researching something that you must obviously know about in order to research it. It also levels the playing field between the computer and human players because the human player can't just research the exact tech they want.

And to the last part of your post: a) The “knight” in court-literature was certainly a fiction and ideal, but nevertheless the knight as military unit (and that’s the only effect of Chivalry in Civ2) was certainly a supreme unit during Medieval.
b) So you deny religious change? Well, I don’t think we can discuss the whole thing here in this forum but I’m sure most people here agree that Religions change and there is even an advance from Polytheism to Monotheism (sorry to all Hindus here).
There is a clear correlation that more advanced civs tend to have monotheistic religions or religions that know only one metaphysic principle (call it nirvana).

But I agree that Elephants shouldn’t come with Polytheism and the Crusaders were just normal medieval knights, there’s no need for that unit.

**Hannibal3** · September 17, 2000, 21:40

Ok. I'm sorry. I can see I should have clarified somewhat.

wernazuma, your first point about what I said. What I meant was that back in the early days of man, some cave man didn't just say, "Hey, I got a great idea! Why don't we invent fire!" In other words, people explore fields of science and come to new discoveries and inventions.

Therefore, like in Alpha Centuri, we should just research such fields like: Military, Agriculture, Economic, Academic, Social, Engineering (and later) Aviation and Nuclear. And these fields are broken into separate ages as mentioned above.

Second, I didn't say it, but I had absolutely no intention to suggest getting rid of the knights. But knights are NOT a product of the concept of chivalry. They are the product of Feudalism. they were the lords of territory bound by loyalty to the king or a higher lord (i.e. the player in civ). So their prerequisite should really be feudalism.

Actaully, feudalism could really be considered a government in and of itself. Granted, it often is associated with Monarchy, but a solidified monarchy with a state army, is much stronger than a coalition of provinces protected by its rulers. (but thats the point here)

Now, my objection with Monotheism and Polytheism is the same as my new one about feudalism. Feudalism was an ERA, and in Russia and Japan that era last many hundreds of years. Yet, we see no effect from it in the game. The religions are no different.

A region under monotheism is under much tighter control than a region with many gods. The reason being that every city has a patron god of some sort, and therefore the local diety holds great importance, and a leader who is divine under some other diety has no real importance to them. Therefore, a region under one god holds all its loyalty to the same god, and he who speaks through that god controls everyone else.

But since many of us, I think, would like to see religion as a real thing in the game, it cannot just be some technology to research. The government can not just turn monotheism on and off like a switch except in the case of Aknatan of Egypt, but they reverted back as soon as he died. No, it requires a massive social project that takes a long time. And even if we converted the civ's religion to monotheism, what do we get? shouldn't we get more consolidation of power? Not in the current game....

**UltraSonix** · September 18, 2000, 18:44

quote:

Therefore, like in Alpha Centuri, we should just research such fields like: Military, Agriculture, Economic, Academic, Social, Engineering (and later) Aviation and Nuclear

This is a must.

But I also think that civ3 should have enough techs so that civs can go down tech paths, like I've said here. So here's a slightly unrelated quote:

quote:

...there should be techs which follow a common theme, and it would allow a civ to choose to go down a specific tech path.
But for this to work, there should techs which have "OR" prerequsite requirements.
eg. In the Green tech sub-tree there could be a tech Human Rights which would require Labour Union.
But in the Militaristic tech tree, Human Rights might require Organised Labour (because Labour Union isn't available in the tech "branch").
(The techs/tree names are only used to illustrate the idea.)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

**Gilgalad5** · September 18, 2000, 21:54

Tech "categories" and "ages" would not at all be to my taste. I would miss having the flexibility to plan advances, react to enemy advances quickly, etc. There should be many paths to progress. However, I agree that the religion model needs a drastic overhaul. Why not just throw mono- and poly-theism away and create concrete advances and improvements such as priesthood, monasticism, etc.
I also think the whole tech tree (especially industrial) needs to be completely rethought. Biggest single problem is that railroads, ironclads come BEFORE industrialization!

**Hannibal3** · September 19, 2000, 17:29

I understand why you would not like the inability to plan advances. I wouldn't either, but I say tough. I mean, if Ceaser had the ability to decide what technologies the Romans WOULD develop, I think the tank and gun would have been invented much earlier. The fact is that being able to choose a technology before its even discovered is a sort of god-status that should be eliminated.

So many people complain that the AI is too easy to beat. Well, this would level the playing field a bit. You'd still be able to research specific fields of science and anticipate what tech will come next based on previous discoveries.

But your definitely right about the railroads and ironclads coming before industrialization. Thats why I said there should be those specific eras. Sometimes a tech has no second prerequisite. The era is the 2nd preq. This would help to keep techs in the same general order that they should come in without having techs ridiculously far from their historical time in relation to the others.

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

**DarkCloud** · September 20, 2000, 18:48

The Spheres of influence should be like the Civ: Call to Power ones:
1. Cultural Advances
2. Sea Advances (Get rid of this one)
3. Construction Advances
4. Agressive War Advances
5. Defensive War Advances
6. Physical Science Advances
7. Economic Advances
8. Medical Advances (Get rid of this one)
9. Mechanical Advances (Get rid of this one)
10. Flight Advances (Get rid of this one)
11. Terrain Improvement Advances (Add this one)

**Nick-oh** · September 21, 2000, 07:45

The 'ages' idea is excellent. It could also be used to stop minor civilizations pestering you for scientific advances which are ridiculously beond their current level of development. So so and so so doesn't bring his archer to threaten your city and demand the secret of automobile to call off his threat.

------------------
Common sense is not so common - Voltaire

**Adm.Naismith** · September 21, 2000, 10:53

Hannibal3, I agree with your point of view on "blind research". I wrote the same some times ago.

Nick-oh, I understand that "age" is a turnaround to avoid some unbalanced research, still I must say I liked more another tech tree concept, that I can't remember exactly where was posted, nor the author:
it was a system based on alternative tech path, with "prerequisite tech research points".
I'll search around a bit, if succesfully I'll link it on a post on this thread.

About helping AI research and silly AI request of tech without prerequisite, I wrote a suggestion that bring me back some stones from some other players :
when civ are in some form of communication, ideas always has natural flow and share, after some times.

I mean, you can try to keep some secret, still sooner or later everyone will know it: when you use a new weapon the enemy will gain knowledge (or at least use of it) after short time period.

You can't use writing and keep it secret from anyone of another civ you trade with (educational level apart, of course). Think when you can discover and use trade with another civ but they doesn't have discovered it yet!

Espionage is already a possibility, but another way of automatic "sharetech" should be included too.

By example, first civ to discover a tech has some early advantage, still it have a sort of "prototyping cost", while other (in contact) civ can have some kind of advantage (e.g. less research cost) for avoiding wrong way to research the same concept.

This will work better with multiple research path, because some civ sometime can gain nothing if it's following a different tech path.

This approach lessen the difference between fast researcher (usually the human) and the follower (AI), helping to keep games interesting, because you are less likening to have stealth fighter knowledge while your enemy is a sitting duck with its musketeer.

It will not unbalance too, because you can't avoid to research at all, just living on someone else shoulder, and you still must have enough production to use the research you earn (ok, you patetic civ know stealth fighter by me: now try to mass produce it with your five shield/turn for every four cities as fast as me, with my 50 shield/year, 40 cities ).

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

Announcement

Let's talk techs...

Let's talk techs...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment