TECHNOLOGY (ver 1.5)- hosted by SnowFire

[croxis]

Some of the options for reasurch can cause a very steep learning curve for people who will be playing a Civ game for the first time. I consiter it to be a good idea when first starting a game to be able to choose 3 options:
1) The standers Civ method of Technolagy-low learning curve
2) A more complex method-medium learning curve
3) Civ3 Historical realism-high learning curve
This way rookies can hop onto the bandwagon and veterins will be challanged. NEVER EVER MAKE THE GAME TO HARD TO LEARN. Rookies to be don't have their voices represented here, so please don't forget them. This might not be the best wording so just reply and I'll try to reword it later.

------------------
"A human imprisons one of us? Intolerable!"
-Ulkesh

[Thue]

Another idea could be a new kind of tech tree. You could make 2 kinds of techs: New tech and improvements on old ones. For example you could choose between climbing the tech tree towards musketeers or improving your bowmen. The bowman tech would lead nowhere, but you would improve your units.
The 2 approches would have to be finely balanced, of course.

If you choose the bowman tech then all your bowmen would be upgraded. This seems like a neat way to have custimizable units without getting to many possibilities.(like in SMAC where you couldn't tell units apart)

This would be fairly realistic. Fx longbows were an advanced bow, better than the muskets of the time. But Muskets held the future.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by Thue (edited May 29, 1999).]</font>

[Spartan187]

I posted this in Radical Ideas, but noone has responded, so here goes:

The only radical idea I can come up with has to do with technology. I think that if the Earth started over now, it would be very unlikely that they would follow the same technological path. The game designers should come up with 2-4 different tech. paths and at the begining of each game randomly chose which path each civ. starts out with. The different paths wouldn't be neccessarily better or worse, just different. Each could have it's own strenghts and weaknesses. I'm not sure what the different paths would be, we can leave that up to the game designers.

[Shining1]

Some issues:
Tech suggestions should be of broad ideas, instead of narrow (if important) fields. Many current ideas seem to be individual professions or inventions, rather than actual 'techs' themselves.

For instance, Demolition is a function of explosives, which is descended from chemistry. It's debatable whether or not all three should be included under the title 'chemistry'.

2)The summary is good, but needs to be broken up more - two sections is not nearly enough. The point by point process shouldn't be applied to each tech, certainly. Suggest:

Tech tree: the whys and hows of the tree(s).
Selection Rules: how the player chooses or obtains a tech.
Tech cost: the various systems and bonuses applied to research for various factors.

And four different levels of discoveries for the suggestions. Suggestions for techs unlikely to be possible at 2100 should either be discounted or listed elsewhere - the Dyson sphere suggestion, for instance (while cool, it would take upwards of 1 000 years work to build - not practical for civ.

Other suggestions should be looked at closely, usually individual items or professions/tasks/ord1ances don't qualify as civ type technologies (unless CTP has taken this to a ridiculous extreme - I don't know).

[NotLikeTea]

I'ma bit worried about the direction that this thread is going, mostly in the case of diverse techs.

In CivII, we'd discover techs every 5-10 turns, more or less... Now, the general opinion seems to support splitting things up, like Medecine into Anatomy, Germ Theory, Immunization, etc... Now, with 3x the number of techs, the time to research would have to be one third the former time. I wouldn't like to be interrupted every 1-2 turns to have to make the decision of what to research next. Plus, the tech tree would become exceedingly complicated, and much harder to learn.

Some of the ideas for techs are good. But in the case mentioned above, I don't think that there is any reason to have multiple techs when only Medecine is really required. Instead of having 3 techs, each with different bonuses, it's easier to have one tech with three bonuses.

Is this entirely realistic? No, of course not... But this is a game, and not a course in the history of science. I think that fun should go ahead of perfect accuracy.

[Harel]

well, NotLikeTea, I belive THIS is the middle-ground...
You see, in a true-to-reality civ III, we would need thousand of techs, litterly. I am not joking. I am one of the supporters of a truely huge tech tree.
CIV II had eighty techs overall... surely even you agree that cant sum up human culture. Not even close... Try to divide them into ages... Can we sum up the computer revoultion into a single tech? Can we ingnore the many sciences, the numerous discoveries?
CIV II totaly ignored the arts and food making techs. Even by limited standards, the tech tree should be atleast doubled.
For example, you can't include germ theory into medcine. Medcine was mainly founded by the minoun/greek/rouman cultures, with the first hospitels, thousand of years ago.
But germs where only found 300 years ago, when microscope was introduced... How can you unite them? They are far away as computers and a note-book.
About learning the tech tree? I for one would say that the tech tree should not be learned, summerized and massmarized.
It would do a world of good if people would stop preping the favorite tech list, from start to bottom, with pointers and hints.
It would be better to have blind tech, and allow everything to slowly evolve.
I point you to idea number 5 in Snowfire huge list ( so good to have a serious person here ), my own idea. The tech tree should be increased, yes, but the time should stay... maxing the time needed to research the tech tree and enforcing cooporation and tech swaps.
Nothing wrong with a little accuracy.

[NotLikeTea]

I agree that more techs are needed, and that accuracy is a good thing.

Been thinking about this for a bit.

However, take the case of Computers. Let's say that it took 50 years to go from early versions to current versions (I know this is not accurate, but it's just for the sake of simplicity).

Now, what if this were treated differently? You choose to research Computers, plain and simple. However, 20% along the way to this discovery, you get a mini-tech, that gives a little bonus or opens up another part of the tech tree. Later on, at 50% you get another mini-tech, and so forth.

This could apply to all techs. Instead of researching Medecine, then anatomy, then germ theory, then immunization, etc.. you would only research Medecine. It would take a couple hundred years to discover, but along the way, you would be getting mini-techs, with their own bonuses.

This is a bit like SMAC research while blind, where you pick a field of discovery, but not the specific techs. Of course, this would require far more fields, and more control.

This would allow the representation of all the tiny discoveries made alnong the path to Computers, without forcing the player to re-choose what tech they want to discover every few years. Of course, it would probably require multiple tech branches being researched at any given time, so I don't know how applicable it is.

The idea of realistic tech progression is a good idea, but I tihnk that is would have to be implemented in such away thet the player would not drown in technology advances, and become hopelessly confused. As described, it seems like too much micromanagement.

I agree with 90% of the stuff said here, especially in the general comments. It is the specifics of the techs that worries me. The idea of "Weaving" and "Loom" as seperate techs looks like it's taking realism a bit too far. Or researching 5 kinds of bows. Or "Periodic Table" and "Chemistry".. and so forth...

[Harel]

Wow, NotLikeTea, that's a very good idea! A very good one... Did you notice how many problems you will solve with that?
First of all, you wrap all all the techs into something like 15-20 MAJOR techs.
Then, you get the small techs along the way... Let's just see how many ideas this sums up totaly ( by Snowfire summary list )
1. You can easiliy research several espects.
2. You have clearly defined fields.
5. Techs are much harder to research, as you have doznes of minor techs.
7. You have theortical research included.
15+16. You have bars, and can easiliy include inertia.
20+23. Specific buildings can easily fit in.
24+27. You have random and blind research ( you don't know how much time till you get another minor-tech, or which one ).
29. Lot's of techs, ofcourse.
43+46. Minor applications and arms race.. wonderful for a SMAC like workshop.

I think you stambled upon the best over-all, idea summerizing idea.
Snowfire, this is vital. Let us try to make this the main tech model, and include the ideas on this model in someway...
Firaxis would stick with the old, un-realistic, un-fun model unless we could present a firm, alternative model, with everyones vote beyond this.

[SnowFire]

Ah yes... nothing like an internet connection on vacation.

NotLikeTea, to be honest, I was trending the same way, but I don't want to offend people by telling them their topics are too narrow. I agree with Harel that things like "the baoynet" (by the time bayonets came into existence, people had been stabbing each other for centuries. However, "Diferenail math" (differential calculus?) is also a bit too specific as well, since "calculus," which wasn't in CivX anyway, doesn't really need to be divided even more into differential and integral calculus. In any case, your idea of "One Tech, several minor techs" definitely has merit. How I see it is sort of a combination of the category system and the minor tech system:
5 main categories of scientists.
Each one chooses a more specific field to be working on. Let's say I put my biology group scientists to work on "medicine." They research various new advances (minor things) until I get a message that any further research into medicine is impossible since all subtechs in the medicine group require pre-requisites from other fields (the subtech "Antiseptics" can't be discovered until the advance of Chemistry, for instance). So I switch those researchers to "agriculture," where they discover subtechs like "Irrigation" and "Crop Rotation." I like this idea...

Shining1, I'll consider it.

Spartan: See point 35.

Mark Everson: Good idea, prevents the save & reload cheat as well... I'll make sure to add that the next time through.

[NotLikeTea]

Actually, after posting I had the same ideas about even broader tech categories..

Medecine under Biology, Computers under Math, etc..

[Harel]

The reason I liked NotLikeTea post, it beacause broader catagories are not fitting... 5 catagories were allready suggested, and i disliked that even then...
You can't balance them out, for the first thing, and most tech fall between chairs.
The idea of reasearching several major techs is perfect, as I does answer several questions and problems.
First of all, you won't get a too-huge tech tree per major tech. When you had several catagories, you can have ( if the tech tree would be atleast half of what it suppose to be ), around 50 techs per catagory, even 100 for physics & math. That's very hard to remember. However, when you divide it to easy to remember groups, you can have a nice amount of tech in every section, allowing specific direction ( but not TOO specific ).
The major techs I have been thinking:

Rulership
Philoshopy
Arts
Religon
Socio-culture ( no other way to say it, major transformation it cultures: Invention, Industralizion, Alphabet )
Mathametics
Physics ( Useful physics, not theortical )
Atomic study ( since the roman Atom theory to today )
Chemistry ( compounds and such )
Construcion ( and works, such as bronze & Iron works )
Engineering ( Better hulls, buildings, etc. )
Medicine
Farming
Elctronics
Flight ( Back even to the days of baloons and flying kites )
Space travel
Economics

BTW,Snowfire... I didn't NOT mean diferenial calculus, I mean the math, in it's purest form. The most basical forumla is X squared = 10X + 3, now draw the graph... etc.
As a physicts, I know the VITAL importance to the scientific world. I know, I know.. you are probaly raising your eye brows. But let me say this: we would had nothing of comoputers, physics or anything, without.
This math is the most complex, yet simplest of math. It was created by Newton, as he was a mathamatician before a phycists. Without it, he would have never made the theory of gravity ( and indeed I said it was the basical pre-requirement ). Computers would have never evolved, and many of the physical theories that allow us our world. You have no idea how vital this tech is.

[NotLikeTea]

I like the idea of two levels of research, here.

On the top level would be things like Math leading to Physics (leading to electronics), Engineering, etc.

On the lower, deeper leel would be all the real tech. Resistors leading to transistors, leading to microchips, leading to computers, or whatever.

[Travathian]

I think the new idea with tech 'paths' is great. I am totally for blind research, and the way it was set up in SMAC. I don't think it should be major techs in which you eventually learn the major tech, but more like tech paths like in SMAC in which you chose Explore, Conquer, etc similar to how Harel has it setup.

Nor do I think the tech tree should be something players should have memorized or extensive knowledge of. I just hate it when players talk about exactly how many techs it requires to get flight in SMAC, and how thats all they do, or go right for Tree Farms. Come on, that gets real lame after a while. Tech should be hard to come by, and civs should be trading techs to advance, not just playing island and trying to learn them all themselves.

I am totally for having a huge tech tree with the tech path Harel has brought up and blind research, and being able to do multi field research.

[SnowFire]

Harel: I couldn't agree more that it's vital. I just thought it was a bit over-specific and too narrow. However, with NLT's system, narrowness shouldn't be a problem.

I think I've come up with a good blend of both systems proposed so far. I really like NLT's idea, and originally I sort of forced it into the 5 categories idea, which would create some categories with very few subcategories to research (okay, do my economists research economics, or economics? do my biologists research medicine or farming?). Instead, let's even further simplify this. The normal setting can be exactly what NLT/Harel describe. You choose 3 topics in which to research. Subtopics are discovered until you change the focus. You have slider bars for how much you concentrate on each topic- in earlier eras, you can swing them wildly in favor of one topic (see point 18), but as time goes on, you have lower and lower "limits" on how much you can concentrate in one area, and perhaps in modern times you're forced to research 4 topics as well. There would be a slight "interest" effect to discourage too much sliding around the tech bars.

Then, there would be the "advanced science" option. This is a combination of idea 2 and NLT/H. Instead of just 3 empty slots, they would be one slot in each field (so you couldn't research "Bronze Working," "Horseback Riding," and "Advanced Demolition" all at once). You would have 1 field of research for each category (now probably Philosophy, Math, and either Psych/Theology or Bio/Ag, or some combination... economics can be easily combined with Philosophy.). And now, those slider bars can't be easily moved around between those projects. The "inertia" and national character kicks in, since different AI personalities have different priorities.

Looking at your list, and using Psych/Religion/The Arts over Biology...

Ph Rulership
Ph Philoshopy
Ps Arts
Ps Religon
-- Socio-culture ( no other way to say it, major transformation it cultures: Invention,
Industralizion, Alphabet )
MP Mathametics
MP Physics ( Useful physics, not theortical )
MP Atomic study (too narrow?)
MP Chemistry ( compounds and such )
MP Construcion ( and works, such as bronze & Iron works )
MP Engineering ( Better hulls, buildings, etc. )
MP Medicine (no Bio to accept it)
Ps Farming (again, no Bio to accept it)
MP Elctronics
MP Flight ( Back even to the days of baloons and flying kites )
MP Space travel
Ph Economics

Hmm... perhaps Math would split up in later days, and give you a fourth category to research in.

I see a big, friendly screen with three big pictures on the left and slider bars under them. The pictures are all blank and all three slider bars are at 33%. I click on the blank picture under "Math & Science" and choose from a list of fields. I choose metallurgy, so I can get my phalanxs with the minor tech "Bronze working" soon. But who knows? I might not get that tech. I go down and choose techs to research in the other two categories as well.

This sounds like a really cool idea to me. Of course, advanced science would be just an option, a scoring bonus on lower levels and a scoring penalty for not having it on higher ones.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So what's the difference between this and the MoO1 tech tree? Whether you call them 'minor techs' or 'subtopics' or whatever, you're still climbing a tech tree that's partitioned into categories.

I don't really see this tree fulfilling the goals of building multiple paths up the tech tree, which everyone seemed so gung-ho about earlier.