TECHNOLOGY (ver1.1): Hosted by Octopus

[Shining1]

Octopus: Good idea, bad implimentation. I reconfigured the game so that 3+ food would appear after you got Biogenetics, instead of genesplicing.

But remember, CivII penalised Despotism with a -50% to resource gathering. While SMAC's limit was far too harsh and took too long to lift, there is a place for something like this.

Call it efficency, and make it a global social setting.

[Ecce Homo]

Maybe techs of different categories should be researched in different ways. Your Barracks could produce Military techs, your Entertainers cultural techs and so on. Most techs would still have prerequisites from other fields - your military wouldn't be able to research musketeers before your scientists have invented gunpowder.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I must agree that I don't see the need for a lose "prereq point" system. Just use Boolean logic with about 4 fields for techs to be entered

It's the same thing, just with a mathematical codification rather than a logical one. The main reason I would want a point system instead of a logical one is that a logical system doesn't allow different levels of influence between techs. With a boolean system, you could say that x and y are close to z, but you couldn't say that y is closer to z than x is. So, while you can get different paths to the same tech using boolean logic, you can't enforce a preferred path (for instance, while you can develop a crossbow from a spear and a sling, it's easier to develop it from the longbow.)

[Koyaanisqatsi]

What are people's feelings on the resource gathering limits linked to techs that were implemented in SMAC?

I kind of like how it was done. It added a little more meaning to advancing tech, but wasn't overly restrictive.

[Shining1]

In all the tech stuff, you shouldn't forget the most fun thing about tech in CivII - those difficult choices between two equally attractive and much needed options.

Any system that lessens this (like the blind tech in SMAC) should probably be dismissed. CivIII is about fun, and the constant need to make difficult choices (and thereby get the right option!) is one of the main reasons that the civ games are so addictive. They maintain the tension all the way through, creating a sense of urgency that other games (RTS included) all lack.

Please do not lose sight of this when planning complicated technology trees - sometimes being able to choose is a GOOD thing.

Shining1

[Koyaanisqatsi]

(glad we can use HTML, those 'quote' things were ugly.)
Bell writes:
So, while you can get different paths to the same tech using boolean logic, you can't enforce a preferred path (for instance, while you can develop a crossbow from a spear and a sling, it's easier to develop it from the longbow.)

Actually, upon further thought (where's my coffee!), you can, so really we're talking about the same concept with different words.

Goal: Crossbow
Prereq: {Longbow AND Compound Bow} OR {{spear AND sling} AND Longbow} OR {{spear AND sling} AND Compound Bow}

Goal: Crossbow--requires 4 Prereq points
Prereqs: Longbow (2pts), Compound Bow (2pts), Spear (1pt), Sling (1pt).

I think the advantage of using points is that you can get points from sources other than actual techs (reverse engineering, diplomacy, whatever) and that would be hard to integrate into a boolean system.

Yes, they would require quite a few techs, but I don't think it would be an unmanagable number. Remember, this system requires parallel research, so that reduces some of the micromanagement (although I'd also like to see 'research queues' that function like production queues.) Also, like I mentioned before and think is absolutely critical no matter what system we end up with, a good tech tree viewer would take care of some of the complexity.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 20, 1999).]

[zaz]

On the Music idea: Fundamentally sound, but remember much of today's music is blamed and in fact any new music at it's given time in history has been considered subversive by the powers that be. So, automatically assuming that it will make the happiness level rise is not necessarily so. If the government in power attempts to supress that music, it will actually make the overall attitude of the city sour. IMHO, Of Course.

[zaz]

Double-post

[This message has been edited by zaz (edited May 20, 1999).]

[CapTVK]

Response to nr 19 'out-of-order techs'

Perhaps we should place the technological advances on an S-curve with the education level(literacy rate?) on the Y-axis? Most of the pre BC advances would only need a low literacy rate (10-15%) But as advances increase you have to increase your literacy rate, electricity would need a 70% rate nuclear physics 85% or higher...

This would indeed slow down techstealing as a poor backward civilization could steal stealth technology but it would be impossible for them to use it because it requires a high literacy rate (95%>).

That's all for now...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Would you want it attached to literacy though? Maybe epoch . . .

[Mark_Everson]

I Really like Zorloc's idea for tech diffusion between civs. (his post 5-19-99 11:51) It would make CivIII a significantly better challenge, and also reflects reality better IMO.

------------------
Mark Everson
Project lead for The Clash of Civilizations
(That means I do the things nobody else wants to do )
This Radically different civ game needs your suggestions and/or criticism of our design.
Check our our Forum right here at Apolyton...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I just came up with an idea. For deciding on how to pick new techs, 3 options: Blind, Picked, or Historical. Now, what is Historical? Let me explain. In the early days, technology came almost spontaniously, while after industrialization, specific techs could be researched. So, blind tech up to Industrialization, and then you can pick your techs all the way to the end..

------------------
Imran Siddiqui
Moderator SG Forums - www.sidgames.com/forums/ ,

"Sir, I would rather be right than be President."

-Henry Clay

[Ralph]

Before suggesting some overcomplicated ideas like “Prerequisite points”, or in some less degree “Multiple paths”, “Parallel research”, “Non-deterministic progress” and “Faction dependent research-trees”, please read trough below arguments and then do some rethinking. I am not saying that i am 100% right in all 3 arguments – just read them trough anyway:


1/ In one area the human logic is VASTLY superior to any strategy-game AI, and that is the human ability to, within a blink of an eye, filter out good and worthwhile abstract strategic choices, from the not-so-good ones.
Artificial intelligence often stinks in this respect – it often had to rely on pure number-crunching capability alone, as a poor substitute.
Just look at how long it took for IBM to create a Deep blue program that could finally beat Garry Kasparov (and that in a game with very few and simple rules, on a tiny uncovered 64 square “world”, and with no element of chance involved whatsoever).
When adding abstract tech-ideas like “prerequisite points”, “multiple paths”, “parallel research” and “non-deterministic progress” – it is almost certain that the human player can utilise these choices MUCH more effective then the upcoming Civ-3 AI. By adding these ideas it just gonna make it that much harder for the game-AI to really compete on FAIR and EQUAL terms. Therefore we should perhaps avoid at least some of them.

2/ The Firaxis team have just spent COUNTLESS hours in creating SMAC. I dont think i very realistic to expect them to “re-invent the wheel” by starting entirely from scratch - in every single conceptual detail.
It is more realistic to believe that they probably want to incorporate most of SMAC´S “under the hood” solutions into CIV-3, as much as possible.
What I mean is; “add-on” and “tweaking” type of suggestions are fine, but suggestions that completely rewrites the basic concepts of the research- progress found in CIV-2 and SMAC? No thanks, unless they really, really ADD something really extra to the “100% absorbing game”-factor.

3/ Please, also remember that Firaxis is in the business of trying to make a profit by selling the upcoming CIV-3 game in – if possible – BIG numbers. This means that the cant design a game that are so complicated that only real hardcore Civ-veterans has the patience to learn it.
They HAVE to make the game easy-to-get-into in order to attract newcomers, yet still making it very worthwhile for any demanding hardcore civ-fanatics out there (not easy).

On the other hand: I think NOBODY wants a Civ-3 equivalent of the coward-update Sim City 3000, with only very lightweight feature-additions and some updated fancy graphics. “SIC” – what a disappointing update it was.

[Depp]

Technology has a tendancy to "leak" across borders, and civil technologies are certain to do this. I think trade between civs should ocaisionally lead to uncontrolled techexchanges.

And emigration of people due to unhappiness or imigration due to happiness should also have a chance of a random tech being given.

I mean, two people trading with each other and living next to each other can´t be too far apart in techology.

what do you think?

[EnochF]

You guys should listen to Ecce Homo. He's full of good ideas.

Problem: Gold has too much of an impact on science. Science improvements should have more of an effect.

Solution: Divide science into categories. Military Academies (early Barracks) would provide a military science bonus along with their quick-repair function. Marketplaces would provide an economic science bonus along with their gold boost. Temples would provide a theological science bonus along with lowering discontent. Libraries, universities and research labs would provide a bonus for everything else.

That way, a rich civilization would end up learning trade very fast, and they'd probably be banking earlier than anyone, but all their gold won't make them discover gunpowder any faster.