Free option: Parallell tech-tree advancements?

[wernazuma]

i think the idea, that those who really use much the benefits from one tech, those techs that have it as prerequisite can be researched quicker, is a really good one.

[Grumbold]

Multiple tech research could be implemented but it would mean shifting the whole process away from its current method. Logically, your empire does not have 2,000 interchangeable multi-talented general scientists. In reality breakthroughs are accomplished by teams of brilliant specialists assisted by some generalists and research staff. For this reason research on marine cultures does not significantly impede progress toward advanced space flight, weapons or philosophy. Implementing that in Civ is probably advocating realism above playability although I would like to see them try. Each tech could have an optimum team size. Each scientist/bulb up to that total would apply at full effect. Further bulbs would speed research at a declining rate, making them potentially more useful if applied to other research. You can still rush a science but it will not be the most efficient way.

It could be interesting though if civ's had different research modifiers depending on their government and peace status i.e. Despots whould have a generally poor scientific output but it would perform best when used to research warlike advances, particularly when fighting a war. To make this work the techs would need to be broken down into their different components. I.e. you would research the basic mathematics advance first, then one possible offshoot would be to design catapults. The warlike could stop to research this new unit while the more peaceloving could choose to discover aqueducts and gamble on not being attacked.

A different thread has already broached this concept of core technologies with offshoot dead-end applications. The basic footsoldier unit would remain largely the same piece throughout the ages but its offense, defence and movement capability would slowly upgrade as enhancements are learned.

[The Mad Viking]

I with the Cheap Cook.

IMO the tech-tree system is fun, the interbranching and prerequisites make for great strategy, and the "decision point" when you pick a tech that you can't change for 10 turns is one of the things that can make you squirm.

Its not the most realistic thing, but as any researcher will tell you, when you drop one project and pick it up a year later, you lose a ton of progress. And IMO it makes it a better game.

[Davor]

Has anyone played Masters of Orion I?
The tech system they used was so simple. I cant understand why some of you people say it will be less fun and to complicated. It really is simple. and its alot of fun cause you can invest in any catagory you needed at the time.

You can have one catagory for say
-weapons\unit.
-Anthor for buildings
-anthor for tile improvements
-maybe wonders
-city improvments.

what ever you needed at the time you can crank it up to max as if you could only research one at a time or do two or three catagories and buile it equally.

Like someone said earlier alot of tech research was discovered at the same time. Civ 3 should reflect this other wise its just the same old as Civ 1 and Civ 2.


I have made a post a while ago about this and all i got was complaints about my idea. its nice to know that some of you do agree with me.

and for the perosn who told me to keep it KISS (keep it simple stupid) why play a game like civ2 or civ3 since its a complicated game.

Davor

[Boracks]

I like the way SMAC handled this. As an option, you could pick which tech to research next, a la civ, or you could set the game to blind research. And with blind research you could still pick from one to four categories to emphasize your research on (although picking all four essentially meant no particular emphasis).


------------------
"Treat each day as if it were your last. Eventually, you'll be right."

[Frugal_Gourmet]

MOO's tech system is infinitely inferior to Civ's.

While admittedly not a "bad" system, it pales in comparison to the simple, perfect, streamlined fun of technology advancement in Civ.

No need to add layers of complexity to what is already one of the most addictive and entertaining aspects of the original.

If they want to add some features, fine, but let's not complicate the ones which are already so inherently beautiful and need no work.

[Adm.Naismith]

Cough, cough, sorry if I jump here again, but if you take a look at Technology thread 2.1 (I previusly posted the link to the old version, my apologies) you can see nice and detailed alternative suggestions, included parallel research etc.

Time ago, when discussion about these emerged, I've found very interesting the ideas 24) Prerequisite points and 10) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS.

I'm not sure about the different ways proposed to organize the research, but I'm more liking suggestion 5) TECHNOLOGICAL "FIELDS" CONTAINING MINOR TECHS and 4) RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA'.

I'm in favour of a half-blind research (search in a defined field, not exactly picking on a tech), because stop a human players to chose only a sure, fastest path to a wanted tech, hundred of years early any human can just imagine it!

Prerequisite points based tech tree can be built mainly "hidden" to novice player, it simply let every civ to have a slighty different tech path, without compromising the whole result, and "great scientist" concept would assure a more realistic science enhancement, specially on early age (think Archimede, Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci), while in modern time a single scientist is usually backed up from a team of good researchers that often could gain similar result, just with longer research time.

Research priority slider bar with inertia is a "finesse", I can live without if it result too much hassle for playability.

For sure, I don't think that CIV 2 easy way to search tech is so good to keep it as is

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

[Wazell]

Well, if you want to research multiple techs at once, Civ3 could benefit from Imperialism-style research model. It is so simple, easy-to-use and beautiful that in many reviews of Imperialism 1 and 2 reviewers say that "wish they used this system in Civilization games, too!". And it works well, many people have already suggested using it instead of old means.

[Grumbold]

For those who are unfamiliar with it, Imperialism gave you 3 concurrent queue slots (later expanded to 4 with a tech advance.) Each slot could be filled with a different specific advance. Each advance had a cost per turn to make progress (increasing gradually for more advanced techs) and could be accelerated (but not doubled) by paying double the cost. So with a fixed amount of research points you can make steady but solid progress across a few techs or focus on just one or two. Having a spy in a country who already possessed a tech you are researching aids progress too.

It suffers slightly IMO from the same inflexibility as Civ because rich nations would always out-perform poorer ones in research. Unlike Civ this is capped slightly by the fact that the mega-rich can not do more than double-cost research on 3 techs. Poor nations can do 0 cost research of a tech already discovered by someone else and get it eventually, too. 0 cost research with an active spy was as fast as the original paid research so it stops the weaker states falling so far behind they get into the pikeman vs tank situation (although they may not be able to afford a large army, of course.)

Imperialism also maps the shifting emphasis between resources like tin, copper, iron, coal etc as new mining techniques and alloys become viable. It only tries to do this for a couple of centuries though, not millennia.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Christ, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet on 01-12-2001 11:57 AM Christ, I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here.

Personally, i feel somewhat unsure/ambivalent about the idea. I want to be able to lead-guide exactly in wich order these strategic tech-advance choices should be made (through the AI text-files) on behalf of the AI-civs, thus saving the AI from its own stupid self - and, by the way: in as many overal strategic/logistic areas of the game as possible.

Parallell percentage-allocated tech-advances tends to complicates things. Also, is there any actual benefit in using parallell research (check my previous, second post).

On the other hand: As the reviewer is one example of - many fans would perhaps hack down on the lack of added sophistication in the tech-advance area.

Anyway, in Civ-2 you could choose to completely bypass the new Civ-2 combat-model, and instead choose the old Civ-1 combat-model, in the pre-game options.
Maybe, if Firaxis decides to implement above idea (in one way or the other), they perhaps should have a similar "Old Civ-2 tech-advance" alternative, in the Civ-3 pre-game options.

[Adm.Naismith]

Ralf,

quote: ... is there any actual benefit in using parallell research (check my previous, second post) (?).

Flexibility is the answer. Please follow my explanation:

CIV 2 like - single queue
You are at peace, so begin to search for a Build (SMAC field are used here for example) research. Nine turn of research are required.

After 5 turn you suddendly meet a powerful Civ, that menace you with a more advanced weapon.

You must "keep the border" for another 4 turn, then switch to military and, after 13 turn you have the needed tech... if you aren't already crushed and buried
OR you must switch research to military, loosing 4 turns flat of research in "Build", and after nine turn you gain the needed military tech

CIV 3 proposed - multiple queue

You are at peace, so begin to search for
33% Build (SMAC field are used here for example) research.
33% Explore
33% Military

Now 3*9 = twentyseven turn of research are required to gain everyone of the mentioned advance.

After 5 turn you suddendly meet a powerful Civ, that menace you with a more advanced weapon.

You can divert 100% of reserch bulb to military, freezing the other two research field.

You have already researched 5/27 of military advance, so switching full steam you'll get it in 7 turn (maybe 8, it depends from rounding).

You'll have your "bandaid" in place one-two turns earlier, and you'll save the research on the other fields for the next peaceful time.

Disclaimer: I'm almost sleeping, so if I mess up the math please tell me gently

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

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 01-13-2001 08:09 PM You'll have your "bandaid" in place one-two turns earlier, and you'll save the research on the other fields for the next peaceful time.

You got me on this one! OK, lets go for "parallell research" then - but, still only as an option to choose. They can make it the default option, that s OK.

But, the old Civ-2/SMAC method should still be an available secondary option, for those who prefer that.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 14, 2001).]

[Ralf]

Read the initial website quote about the need for parallell tech-tree advancements.

Since this seems to be a subjects there civers like to have opinions upon, and since many newcomers have been registrated at Apolyton lately, I thought it would be worthwhile to resurface this issue again. Any additonal comments?

[TechWins]

I don't see why you would want to research multiple things at a time. Let's you say you want to research four things at a time. It will take you 20 turns to get all four things. If you research each one individually it will take you 5 turns for each tech. So ultimately you'll wind up with all four techs at the same time either way. Along the way of getting the fourth tech you'll be able to use the other 3 techs. So why would you wait 20 turns to be able to use any of the techs? At least when you're researching individually you'll be able to use the techs, as you're researching. Does this make sense to anyone?