TECHNOLOGY (ver1.2): Hosted by Octopus

[the Octopus]

I don't want the thread to get completely sidetracked by meta-issues. Come on, people, I know there are more ideas out there, let's hear 'em! Don't be afraid if your ideas aren't as grandiose as some others that have already been posted, we can use some simple ideas to balance the thread out . (That's not to say the grandiose ideas aren't welcome, all ideas are welcome).

I personally like item 34 in the list (SnowFire's multiple fields with inertia). I think it has a lot of potential. It seems to me to have a nice balance between controllability and playability (it's very similar to Master of Orion 1, which I think had an excellent interface in terms if minimizing micromanagement and maximizing the time spent doing fun stuff). For that idea and some of the others already suggested, it looks like we need basic "categories" of techs (SnowFire has suggested: philosophy, psychology, math & physics, agriculture & biology, and economics. How about some discussion of these or suggestions of some others? Which categories would some of our "tried-and-true" technologies fit in a scheme like this?


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Snowfire writes
Physics is a lot easier with calculus, so I say give the bonus to calculus after you're done researching physics.

Yeah, but a modern physics wouldn't have developed nearly as quickly without calculus, and calculus wouldn't have developed as quickly without physics. They were developed simultaneously, and really, couldn't have been developed independantly without a lot of false turns and guesswork (well, ok, more than there are now.) There's a lot of technologies that are like that.

Besides, you're suggesting once again that you can set 66% of your civilization to all be mathematicians and scientists when they aren't going to be.

a set percentage of scientists dedicated to that field [. . .] And there would be "inertia" when changing them

Could you explain these further? I'm not sure what you mean.

In order for there to be any choice at all, you would have to have set technology points for levels

What do you mean? That's the point of the whole system, to give you options and choices. And since there's more integration with the game itself, you have to be more responsive to game cirucmstances, and make choices based on long/short term gains.

[Mark_Everson]

How about making each tech have Directly Tied To It a number of research points needed to achieve it. There are some big advantages to this...

For those who might not know, the main thing in Civ2 that determines the cost of the next advance is the number of techs you currently have. There are modifiers for world size, blah blah blah, but the # of techs is the main one. What this means is that I can't get Masonry from the Bablylonians without hurting my progress in everything else. This leads to some downright weird strategies for tech.

What I propose instead of this is that, say, Monarchy Always has a cost of 150 lightbulbs or whatever. That way when I get Masonry from the Babs it doesn't screw up my advance toward that critical Monarchy.


------------------
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...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Mark_Everson writes
For those who might not know, the main thing in Civ2 that determines the cost of the next advance is the number of techs you currently have.

I'd forgotten about that . . . in any case, I'd intended that techs each have a set number of points required to discover them.

[BoomBoom]

Ok i was thinking right, does the research tree have to be historically accurate?
Because if it isn't, you could have games where a civ, instead of going for "our" more mechanical view of research (ie. using machines, physics etc, for our major advances), could go for a more cerebral approach (focussing more on pshychological powers). Anther possible line could be organic (anyone seen eXistenZ?).
Now I don't know if this would suit the first game in the series, but it should come in at some point. Just because we focus on mechanical aspects does not mean other civs do the same (on earth for example one could think of the Mayas as an example of a more mystic, cerebral race (mainly based in Maths)).
To do implement this system one would have to have relatively equivalent techs along the tree (for example both should have a building early on that increases growth by 25%). This would make games more interesting by pitting you against civs that had developed their techs along a completely different route.

[SnowFire]

Well, rules.txt is the next best thing. Here are my ideas on the current tehnologies:

Key: Ph=Philosophy, Psy=Psychology, MP=Math & Physics, Bio=Agriculture & Biology, Eco=Economics, --=kill the tech, ?=not sure.

Advanced Flight, MP
Alphabet, Ph
Amphibious Warfare, --
Astronomy, MP
Atomic Theory, MP
Automobile, MP
Banking, Ec
Bridge Building, MP
Bronze Working, Ec
Ceremonial Burial Psy
Chemistry, MP
Chivalry, Psy
Code of Laws, Ph
Combined Arms, --
Combustion, MP
Communism, Ec/Ph (not sure)
Computers, MP
Conscription, Ph
Construction, MP
The Corporation, Ec
Currency, Ec
Democracy, Ph
Economics, Ec
Electricity, MP
Electronics, MP
Engineering, MP
Environmentalism ?
Espionage, Psy
Explosives, MP
Feudalism, Ph
Flight, MP
Fundamentalist Psy
Fusion Power, MP
Genetic Engineering Bio
Guerrilla Warfare Psy
Gunpowder, MP
Horseback Riding Bio
Industrialization Ec
Invention, Ph
Iron Working, ?
Labor Union, Ec
The Laser, MP
Leadership, --
Literacy, Ph
Machine Tools Ec
Magnetism, MP
Map Making, Ph
Masonry, ?
Mass Production Ec
Mathematics, MP
Medicine, Bio
Metallurgy, Ec
Miniaturization Ec
Mobile Warfare --
Monarchy, Ph
Monotheism, Psy
Mysticism, Psy
Navigation, MP
Nuclear Fission MP
Nuclear Power, MP
Philosophy, Ph
Physics, MP
Plastics, MP (eco?)
Polytheism, Psy
Pottery, Bio?
Radio, MP
Railroad, MP (eco?)
Recycling, MP? (Ph? Eco?)
Refining, Eco (Bio?)
Refrigeration, Bio
The Republic, Ph
Robotics, MP
Rocketry, MP
Sanitation, Bio
Seafaring, Bio?
Space Flight, MP
Stealth, MP (--?)
Steam Engine, MP
Steel, Eco
Superconductor MP
Tactics, --
Theology, Psy
Theory of Gravity MP
Trade, Eco
University, Ph
Warrior Code, -- (Bio?)
The Wheel, MP
Writing, Ph

As you can see, Math & Physics constitutes the bulk of the current tech chart- more than half of it, probably. And that's taking some techs that might be considered part of it and putting them under Economics. Agriculture & Bio has very very little under the current system, and Psych could use a few more techs as well. Not that they all don't need more. Now, I'm not saying we have to totally change the tech tree around, but we should figure out some more balanced categories so we don't all turn Ag & Bio down to 5%.

[the Octopus]

I recieved this via e-mail, and the person doesn't care about being mentioned in the list. I don't mind doing this, but if you want your name to show up in the final credits for the list, you <u>must</u> post in the appropriate list thread. We will be gathering the names of those who have contributed by parsing the .html files that make up these threads. If your name isn't in the appropriate place, the parser won't know that you have contributed. We are doing this to both give you the recognition that you deserve and also to show Brian that lots of people contributed to this list, not just a few people with their own private agenda.


---------------------------------------------

A. Every tech should give a small bonus to a specific region. Trade would givr +5% to economy, plant selection to food making,
etc.
B. Techs should be hard to accquire ( many more points of research ), to force cultures to trade techs between themselfs
( like in real history, no single country discovered the entire tech tree ).
C. More emphesis on food making techs ( very vital along history ). Those are: Plants cultivasion, Farming, Irrigation, Genetic manipultion, food cycle, manauring technics.
D. Techs should give types of armor, chassis and weapons, like SMAC, and not made units. This way, you could custom make
your own unit ( a knight, would be chassis: horseman, armor: chest-mail, weapon: lance, ability: chivalry ( +50% morale ).
E. You should be able to spend research to upgrade those items. Improvments to chassis: longer ranges, better speed, etc.
Arms race. Just like in history. Even in the middle ages, battles were won and lost due to the level of the swords and armor.

"Downloading techs". You could just
download new techs from Firaxis ( if they will go for the big tech tree
model, they would need to create hundreds of techs ), and then new ideas
would pop up all the time.

---------------------------------------------

------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[SnowFire]

Mark: Exactly. That's why I'm asking for specific costs; to prevent pottery from taking forever to be researched by an advanced society, simply because the game assumes pottery must be a really advanced technology because I've already discovered so many.


Bell: "Yeah, but a modern physics wouldn't have developed nearly as quickly without calculus, and calculus wouldn't have developed as quickly without physics."

I can't agree more. Calculus is easier with physics, and physics is easier with calculus. However, you have to divide them, unfortunately (though you could make one a prerequisite of the other). But if I research physics first, and then research calculus, are you telling me I shouldn't get my syngery bonus? After all, not only do I already have physics to help me out, but it's actually complete- it's not half finished, like it would be normally. And yet I get no bonus for it because I didn't research at the same time, which goes back to that old fallacy of all scientists being equal and them all being generalists. This can still lead to some strange game play quirks, like putting all three of yor research projects on the same field, and then putting your next three on the same field, etc.

Now, I can see your point if you still get the synergy bonus when the other member of a pair has already been researched. But otherwise...

"In order for there to be any choice at all, you would have to have set technology points for levels" [me]

"What do you mean?"[Bell]

I've achieved stone, sling, and recurved bow. It's a CivII system where number of technologies determines how had it is to research the next thing. I can research either Longbow or Crossbow. Since they cost the same, I research Crossbow (duh). Even if they cost different, I have an unusually strong urge to leapfrog, unless the difference in cost is truly magnificent.

"Could you explain these further? I'm not sure what you mean." [referring to point 34 and different types of scientists]

Instead of saying there is one generic type of scientist who can research anything, I am saying there are 5 generic types of scientists who can research anything in their field of study. It's still a simplification, but it's much more realistic, IMHO. What you are setting when you alter those bars is how you encourage your colleges and universities to train students in to create rough proportions of the number of economists, the number of biologists, etc. trained and the distribution of research money to government favored projects. Each technology is placed into one of the five fields. You research 5 technologies at once, one in each field. In an extremely simply example, I have 100 research points being generated with no bonuses at all. My settings have 30% philosophy, 30% math & physics, 25% psychology, 20% agriculture & biology, and 20% economics. So, my philosophy technology I'm researching gets 30 research points, my math technology gets 30, etc. Now, let's say that I'm suffering from some inefficiency from my recent greater focus on philosophy that hasn't faded away yet (I increased the slider bar there from 25 to 30 at the expense of economics); so, instead of 30 research points, I only get 27. This will fade away eventually, as the next generation of thinkers really does become 30% philosophers.

Now, if only I could find my good old CivII research chart... I have my CivI one, and my CivII instruction manual... where is it?

[the Octopus]

Come on, guys, keep 'em coming! Or at least get in here and criticise .

EnochF, where are these future techs you promised us?


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[Ecce Homo]

TECH PRESERVATION
In the existing Civ games, a discovered tech is yours forever. It can never be lost. It is also distributed all over your civ.

My idea:
Scientific techs would havve to be "stored" in a Library or a University.

If a Library/University had remaining "storage space" they would research new techs - if they had got the prerequisites!

Techs would work as trade goods, which would be sent between cities and civs. (Must have a method to reduce microman't.)

Ancient techs like Pottery could be preserved by oral tradition. These would never be lost.

[the Octopus]

How about some Techs and benefits that don't go well together. I never liked the fact that Labor Union gave you Mechanized Infantry, since they are not uniquly related. Any others?


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[Druid2]

I've tried to read thru and understand all the lengthy alternative proposals here. And frankly, I'm perplexed.

I would *LOVE* to see a short summary by the alternative authors on this very simple, but crucial subject:

"Why would your proposal be better than the one used in Civ2 or SMAC."

And *PLEASE* dont cite 'more realism.' THis is not a real world sim... it's a game. For realistic research, we'd just have to install a random number generator.. or steal tech s from somebody else.

[Shining1]

Comments:
There needs to be another thread on this - this is in fact the 'tech system' thread, not the technology one. Yin, octopus - sort this out.

The mere fact that Bell's system took such a long post to describe is a concern. I have these points to make:
1) Bell assumes that you can get to different advances by taking different paths. I seriously doubt that this is correct? Even if so, then by how much? In truth, I suspect that to hold the creditibly of the gamer, the alternate paths won't be very different.

2) In addition, the points system seems difficult to easily understand, and is at any rate completely subjective, as in point 1. Who's to say that bronze working is 10% of the way to iron working or 90%?

3) The amount of work required in given each technology a prereq percentage to determine it's relevance to other advances (some of which may also be prereqs to that tech!) is mindboggling. I mean, how much did pottery influence mechanised warfare? Both the algorithm required to handle this and the encyclopaedia entry for the tech are work better spent elsewhere, IMO.

While it's true that the CivII system was simplistic and threw up some major flaws (especially in the late game unit/tech dependancies), on the whole it was pretty good. Simple, mostly true, and logical, with NO maths required and little management other than picking the next tech you needed. Which was often enough of a choice in itself.

Shining1

[the Octopus]

Shining1: I've been trying to encourage people to post "concrete" tech suggestions in addition to these systems. I don't see how a new thread would be any more effective. I think that this thread is percieved by some to be a "tech systems" thread because there are a few posters who have very ambitious ideas, and who tend to write long posts explaining them (e.g. Bell, SnowFire, and to a lesser extent, me). While I know it isn't their intent, this may have intimidated some other posters who have less "grand" ideas.

If anyone has any new ideas for actual techs, please suggest them. We want to hear suggestions like that, too. My suspicion is that there will not be many more new "systems" proposed. Most people will probably be making "small" suggestions. (That isn't to say new systems aren't welcome, I just don't think there will be too many more proposed).

If we continue without some new suggestions (instead of just discussion on systems like Bell's) I may try to figure out a solution (maybe a brief moratorium? I don't know).

As it stands, there is too much desire to split things up in this forum as it is. I don't understand why. I think we should avoid splitting threads whenever possible.

If anybody else agrees with Shining1, please speak up. Unless I hear otherwise, I am going to assume that everybody likes all of their tech suggestions and discussion centered in a single thread like I do.


------------------
CIV3-THE MASTER LIST-TECHNOLOGY "THREAD MASTER"

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Druid2 writes
"Why would your proposal be better than the one used in Civ2 or SMAC."

Because it allows for more variety in gameplay. Right now, techs are just used as a method to move the game forward, there's not a lot of strategy involved in research order or prereqs--you just generate x lightbulbs per turn, and when all your lightbulbs for that tech are filled up, you pick a new tech and make more lightbulbs. The system I'm proposing gives you more flexability in how to approach the tech tree and as such introduces more strategy play into it. And after all, the core of games like Civ is strategy.