TECHNOLOGY (ver 1.5)- hosted by SnowFire

[Harel]

Well, Bell, it seems to me this are the current requests:
A. bigger tech tree ( people seem to dispute on how MUCH the tech tree should be increased, but everyone would like atleast a few new tech to diverse ).
B. can research several tech at the same time.
C. blind and random research

Having split tech-tree was an idea, a good idea with historical applications, but i don't belive it has wide interst here.

However, I want to make something clear. Whatever we decide we want several narrow fields, or a small number of big catagories, EVERYONE here agrees the tech model MUST be changed.
I want people to think about SMAC. How many new ideas we had for it? While SMAC allows you, with the social changer, the specific factions and workshop to really create the empire you want, it didn't improve upon CIV II model as it should.
And while i am sure CIV III will continue this work, it won't be THAT changed.
I am sure we will keep the old one box=one unit=one city model, even if most people hate that idea.
That's for CIV IV, probaly
We need good ideas that can be added to the old model without changing to much. Beacause SM and BR will be sure to keep the old, safe, loved model. What we can change? Things that won't revoke the game too much.
That it, THE TECH TREE. It's the most open-to-renovation subject left, after most of what CAN be changed without changing too MUCH has been in SMAC.
However, if will present Firaxis will Snowfire 150 list of ideas, we are sure of not being heard. Nothing will change. The genetic, irritating "future tech +5 points" will stay. The limited, too small tech tree will stay.
We must unite, create a solid model for research ( 3 catagories or 16 major-techs, that beside the point right now ).
What we need to do?
Summarize the ideas, the tech tree. Work out what techs we need, and what can be discarded. CIV II had 82 techs. I suggest we go for something like 150. I would like more, thats true. Much more. But that won't happen.
So, let's create our new tech tree. Tell Firaxis EVERYONE wants blind, random catagorial research, like SMAC or better. And get things done. The technology thread is the most important one around.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Harel writes:
Tell Firaxis EVERYONE wants blind, random catagorial research, like SMAC or better.

Um, yes, but, ah, (minor detail) that isn't true. Read over the older threads. The people who were posting in them didn't like the idea of blind research. And those people aren't posting anymore, so we can't assume that they have changed their minds. And if you look at all the changes in SMAC that made the game better, they're all about increasing player control, not decreasing it. Blind research was included, but the option was there to turn it off (which I did and do, by the way.) If you want blind research, integrate it into the current tech format, but don't enforce it as inherent to the tech system, or tell BR that that's what everybody wants.

[Harel]

My regrests, Bell, I thougth it was clear... I by the way also turned off Blind reaserch. It's understood, and clear that you can turn it off. Even if will have NotLikeTea model, you can still, optionaly, pick up the next advance you want of the possible ones.
I know I will. However, I sensed that most people want that. Maybe I am not around here long enough, cause I saw no objection to blind research what-so-ever. However, I insist the blink research should be available, AS random and catagorial research.

Now look, I don't want to alienate anyone. Maybe I spook to soon or used too many generalazing. I DO belive that everyone here wants a change to the tech model and tree.
Whatever it's a small change and invoation to the tech tree ( changing them a bit and adding a few ), to a drasticly larger tech tree, to something in between ( like I said, i belive that we can all agree on a tech tree that will include 120-150 GOOD tech options ), and I do think you won't find anyone who wants to leave future techs as they are now ( who cares about +5 in multiplayer, the next step in modern gamings? ).

So, we all want changes. The level of those changes and direction has to be decided. I am sure that if we won't show a fixed, firm idea to Firaxis, the tech tree would only be slightly altered withsome ( probaly good ) ideas we posted here. Would be nice, but not half of what needs to be achieved.
So, united we stand, united we fall.

By the way, Bell, i noticed you only had problems with blind research, causing me to think that you too agrees with the other general thoughts I said. So indeed, people want catagorial research, with a bigger tech tree and random and blind research, OPTIONAL .

[Koyaanisqatsi]

My problem was more with telling BR that everyone supported something when they didn't than the specific problem of blind research (or any of the other topics you mentioned.) If you look at my summary post in <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000038.html">Technology 1.2</a> you'll see basically how I think technology should work, which includes both a larger tech tree and parallel research (and the option for blind research, although I don't remember if I mentioned it in that post or somewhere else.) Again though, I don't really see the difference between this system and the one from MoO1. You're still picking the same technologies, no matter what you call them. If you select individual techs by selecting the category they're in or piecemeal, it's still the same thing.

[Harel]

Well, then, we need to set up our mind and decide something we can ALL truely say we accept, or atleast tolerate.
I for example, belive that we should have apllications and theortical research, and that we include such about every nock humanity discovered. I am ( well, going to be ), a scientist, I am painfuly aware of the importance of every small item. Beside, the only way to show the awesome might of humanaty science and learning is by showing all of the finer discoveries and inventions along history.
I am aware that only a slightly larger tech tree shell still pain and anger me. I am, however, being realistic. Firaxis will never create that huge tech tree. People won't want it. It will confuse them. And beside, I have my doubts about it's playability and fun.
My point is, we all have to make terms and settle for the best middle ground: get where we can all say "I can live with that". I can't live with the existing tech tree, but i could bear something along the line of what me, NotLikeTea and Snowfire suggested.
I asked people to help us shape the suggest model ( as I said, the amount of sub-catagorizing is not important, the fact that we DO have catagorizing is what important ) to fit everyone wishes, more or less. Something acceptable.
The task at hand now is setting the new tech tree. We need to collect around 120-150 techs, fitting techs which won't be too narrow. THEN, and only then, will we decide how we want to show, randomly or not, blindly or not... I just wanted to state the things i belived we all accpeted. I thought everyone wanted blind research, so I said so in hope that people will see we have a common idea and goals. Sadly, I was wrong. Some people don't want that. I wasn't aware of that, and so I send my regrets. We still need to come to terms.

[wheathin]

Total Number of Techs:

...is largely irrelevant, because we don't know how long the game is. What is important is the ratio of techs to game turns. NLT's point is a good one: we don't want to be discovering a new tech every 3 turns, even though most of us probably did at least that towards the end of Civ2, and probably a lot faster

If we have multiple simultaneous researches going on, then you can have far more techs because instead you'd be bothered less frequently but get to choose more new techs at a time - instead of one every 3 turns, it'd be like choose 4 new techs to research every 8 turns.

Another solution is just a much longer game - 500 turns is SHORT. If you go to 800 or 1000 turns, then 200 techs isn't such a bother.

For players who want less to worry about, an automated reasercher could work: sort of like Blind techs in that you're never totally sure what it's going to choose next after you set the general priorities, it just goes on its own; but you can step in any time and get more direct control.

wheathin

PS: it should be noted that I like LOTS of techs - adds more to the realism of the experience for me. Most of the historic (non-future) techs listed in the summary (Nos. 69-122, and much of 134-136) were my suggestions, including several of the ones Octo and SF didn't seem to like much.

About which I'd say: just cause you don't like them, or agree with their relevance, or think they're redundant, your job is to SUMMARIZE. Put your own opinions into another post; don't abuse your role as MODERATOR.

Most of my tech suggestions I thought met quite specific needs:
- Economic, social, or non-traditional science techs to counter-balance a clear Physics-Math-Engineering bias in the previous Civ tech trees. (Botany, Physiology, History, Crop Rotations)
- More techs to reflect historical contemporaneity and accuracy. (Ex: Calendars formed the basis of most pre-historical mega-lithic structures, and were important to the growth of agriculture and religion.)
- Techs to reflect sea-changes in intellectual thought and social structure/values. (Money Economy, Urbanization, Revolution, Humanism, Empiricism)
- Splitting up of techs that cover an immense ammount of human endeavor spanning several centuries. Ex: the subdivision of Chemistry and the industrial revolution into many smaller techs.

Mostly, I assume the game-designers will have sufficient familiarity with history to pick the major tech advances; but if they want more (and I hope they do), these suggestions, and those made by many other contributors, will be of great help.

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by wheathin (edited June 01, 1999).]</font>

[the Octopus]

I know, I know, I left, but...

I just wanted to chime in for a moment with a few friendly reminders (prompted mostly by Harel's and Bell's comments, but nobody should take these personally...)

1) Don't confuse vocal support for wide-spread support. Just because somebody can explain something well, or explain it to us well, or even just post in this forum doesn't mean they have a monopoly on what the gamers want. The vast majority of civ players will never even know about this list.

2) Don't confuse intense support for wide-spread support. Just because somebody really likes an idea doesn't necessarily make it a good and/or popular idea.

3) Don't assume that Brian is an idiot. Brian Reynolds and Sid Meier are professionals, and they are good at what they do. If they can't look through this list and pick out the gems and throw away the garbage, then nobody can. The idea that we somehow need to come to consensus on what the "right" answer is is not what this list is all about, this list is supposed to generate a huge cross-section of ideas that they can pick and choose from (or totally ignore) when making the game.

4) Don't confuse complexity or realism with fun. You may come up with a really "excellent" system which seems to have all the elements you think are "missing", but if that doesn't result in a fun game, you won't enjoy it any more than the rest of us. (Not singling anyone out, but this should be in the back of everyone's head when proposing new "systems").

5) Don't assume that "change" equals "good". Since we can't know otherwise, assume that there is a relatively large majority of people out there who says "you did things great with Civ I and II, don't go screwing it up now."

6) Don't try to kill other people's ideas, unless they are "bad" ideas. As Bell said, just because someone isn't speaking up doesn't mean they don't have an opinion. There are plenty of people who show up, drop their suggestion, and leave. Every idea in the list had at least one supporter. The condition for making the cut shouldn't be "you have to post every day supporting your idea", it should be "you have to post an idea that isn't obviously horrible, end of story". And the only reason for the caveat is so you can cut out ideas like: "I want Civ to be actual real-time, and it should take 6000 years to play...".

7) Have fun. If you can't bear the thought of somebody making a game without including your idea, you probably aren't in the right place .

ALSO: Any blame for errors, omissions, etc., in the above summary should be focused squarely on me. SnowFire didn't make many changes from what I gave him. I did get a bit lazy toward the end... Naturally, though, SnowFire deserves any and all credit if you like it .

Wheathin: I don't think I made any serious omissions. I may have lumped yours (I haven't actually gone back and checked) in with the "things I don't think really fit" category because (as I said) I was getting lazy toward the end, and also because those things really didn't seem to be of the right "flavor" as all of the other Civ-type techs (and some of the ones I did separate out should probably end up in that bucket too). Is this editorializing? Probably, but they're all there if you want to point out an error (unless I made a cut-and-paste error, which I specifically asked people to watch for ). There is a fine line to be walked between going overboard on the summaries and making sure that people don't feel slighted in the way that their ideas are presented. I'll let SnowFire figure that one out . However, just make sure that you don't blame SnowFire for "mistakes" I have made.


<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by the Octopus (edited June 01, 1999).]</font>

[wheathin]

Octo-

I agree in large part with your post. We don't need the One True Path (tm) for Civ3 here. Quite the contrary, we need lots of ideas and arguments to support them. To the extent that BR and SM utilize this info, it will be for ideas and brainstorming. We may have hundreds of good ideas across the various topics, and very few if any will end up in the game.

These ideas are at their most useful when they (a) highlight existing Civ/SMAC design flaws or potential implementation problems, thus functioning as free QA, (b) provide interesting solutions to smaller problems, and (c) offer interesting fruit for further development.

I imagine, given the general sameness of Civ2 and SMAC, that Civ3 will be a tweak-fest of many small and incremental changes. There may be one or two totally redesigned aspects of the game (like Factions, Units, and SE in SMAC), but not much more. Activision got hammered extensively (and in my view undeservedly) because they changed a lot of the game. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" will be the mantra of Civ3 designers, if only because nearly every change will upset *someone* who had a different idea of what Civ3 should be. SM-BR have made 3 games that are basically the same (maybe 4 - didn't he/they make MoO2?). They're not gonna change now.

Regrettably, the Civ3 team may not even feel comfortable taking the better ideas from CtP that SHOULD be used (Public Works, vision classes, the CtP space implementation, trade system).

What this all means is that, elaborate and elegant as the systems are, suggestions for *minor* modifications or expansions of the existing game engine will be far more likley to be incorporated than major conceptual revisions.

wheathin

Octo - I re-read much of the summary and my post; I over-reacted a bit. Sorry. I guess we have a slight philosophical disagreement over what techs are/ought to be.

[SnowFire]

Hmm... actually, I was already cooling a little bit on that idea anyway. In any case, I'll post it up there in the next summary.

Harel: I for one hated blind research in SMAC. However, I like the idea of a sort of semi-blind research. That's why I supported your idea before.

Bell: It's different because you don't see the tech tree. In MOO II, you actually chose the "minor techs" you wanted to research. In this system, you don't.

wheathin: Don't let Octopus take too much blame. I haven't read too much of the systems you were descibing, so I couldn't summarize better than Octopus did. I'll try and correct that in the next summary. I take full blame/credit for the editorial on the calander- I'll delete it in future versions of "the summary," but, as a normal forum member I'll debate you on that right now. I agree that calanders had religious significance to many civilizations. However, I still think that the religious theology is what should be researched that includes a calander, not "Calander." That way Octopus's atheist civilization perhaps devlops a calander through astronomy, while your civ develops it through mysticism. I just think that the Calander, like music, is something unique to each civ and devlops a different way.

And oh yes, Octopus, just because you "left" doesn't mean you have to stop contributing .

<font size=1 color=444444>[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited June 01, 1999).]</font>

[The Rusty Gamer]

A new variation could be to have certain techs that are exclusive to each race (what these techs are could be randomised). Your race can only make use of the other races techs by forming aliances with them. You can never learn them bacause it takes a certain mindset or concept that your race will never grasp but while you have alliances you can then make whatever units, build whatever buildings that tech allows. If you stop being in alliance with that race, you can no longer build aforementioned stuff, tho' you keep what you have. If the race is conquered or dies out, that tech is lost forever, never again can it be used. These exclusive techs could even be prerequisites for other techs that you can't research without an alliance or even a combination of alliances to really complicate things. You'd really have to choose your friends carefully then wouldn't you? And want to protect some from extermination

[wheathin]

SF:

I think Calendar is a good example of a problem I tried to solve: a single tech covering a wide range of human experience that creates problems for tech-tree designers. Astronomy is a good example in general because it is clearly needed as a pre-req later in the game for Space, and in the midgame for Physics or the Kepler's Laws equivalent tech. But "Astronomy" without further clarification can mean all of these, and more: Babylonian star gazing, Arab astrology and star charting, early 20's radio astronomy, etc... But if you split the tech into several smaller techs, it becomes more manageable, and more realistic. Calendar appears early perhaps circa 3000BC. Astrology covers the gap from there to roughly 600 AD. A move to more observation-driven science and away from mysticism would be Astronomy (the Arab practices which were considerable), then Heliocentrism, Orbital Mechanics, and more modern sub-disciplines. Each of these are separated by hundreds, if not thousands, of years - lumping them all under "Astronomy" is weak.

I do agree that exploding the tech tree can get annoying, when we are proposing too many techs separated by too few years. Techs from before about 1750 or 1800 can be used because they cover broad time-spans, even relative to the length of civ-turns, and there just aren't a lot of them. When you get into the Industrial Age, the problem still isn't that bad. The turns lengths tend to shrink faster than the number of techs, with the effect that there aren't enough. Chemistry is a good example: after Alchemy, Chemistry can be expanded into many subdisciplines with distinct advantages and effects:
- Periodic Table allows the atomic-nuclear tech line.
- Physical chem allows geology and industrial manufacturing techs, or maybe Ceramics later.
- Organic Chem allows explosives, fertilizes, dyes, and refining.
I think we ten to look at computers, engineering, and physics as needing lots of sub-techs in the 20th century, because it is what we are familar with. But in the 19th century, the most impressive gains in Industrial and Scientific power were made in chemistry, and the tech tree should reflect that.

OF course, this can go to extremes the other way: there are so many possible 20th century and modern era techs, especially post-1945, that it is tempting to make them all separate. But we can't really, because then unless turns are a month long, you couldn't discover them all in time. Proposals for separate techs for adding machines, vacuum tubes, integrated circuits, transistors, chips, micro-chips, networks, internets, supercomputers, etc... can't work: if we applied this same level of reductionism to other fields, we'd have hundreds of techs for the period from 1950-2000, and the game would be literally unplayable. (Further examples are illustrated by the myriad small techs suggested for space - rockets, icbm, satellites, weather sats, comsats, spysats, shuttles, spacelab, space station.)

A tech should cover an equivalent time-period in each age. Medieval techs might cover 300 years. Rennaissance techs, every 100. Industrial, every 25 or so. Modern, every 10 years perhaps, but the number of fields also widens (new areas like flight, electricity, space, genetics, computers) so we need to be careful.

My Point: more techs are good if they counter the current biases towards modern-era / near-future time periods and physics/engineering/computer advances. More non-physics sciences and social/economic ideas are needed, relative to Civ2, SMAC, and CtP.

wheathin

[Harel]

People seem to read small sections of my posts, cause otherwise i am way too puzzeled...
So, settle down. This is going to be a long one
First of all, I am sure that most people like civ III along the same lines of CIV II. I am sure about this, I even said:
Quotes:
"Beacause SM and BR will be sure to keep the old, safe, loved model. "
"the tech tree would only be slightly altered withsome ( probaly good ) ideas we posted here. Would be nice, but not half of what needs to be achieved."
Now, Firaxis are working for Hasbero, a big company. I am quite sure they will NOT try to break away from the familer method. Like SMAC, it will probaly continue the line of self-tuning, allowing the player to create a custom empire to fit he's desires. This is why it will probaly support many civs ( ala CTP ), unlike what i suggest in the civilaztion thread.
However... the basics of civ will stay. Like Wheatthin said, this game will be a tweak-fest, but not more.
As I said before, most of the game reached a point when we only need a bit of tweaking. Some more diplomactical options will make that almost perfect. More goverments and social options will complete the social-mode changer in SMAC. What can we change, totaly change that won't have too drastic remfactions on the game? The tech tree. We can re-model is completly without changeing the old and well fonded game.
Now, Octupos, I have no doubt most people love CIV II as it is. I am the same. And yes, it is gurnteed that the voices over here have interst, and do not represnt the game community purily. And yes, change doesnt meaning always good. HOWEVER, every change to the tech tree will be good.
I do belive, from here and other friends of mine, that the tech tree is the most disputed element ( after diplomacy ) in the civ series. People, atleast the people here and the one i know, ALL DISLIKE the tech tree. The main problem is with the generic future techs who give an obsured and useless bonus.
I use the technological approch: the guys who use the psilon in moo2. The people who go for a huge technological advantge, neglecting military in the way ( and sometime pay dearly fot that ) till they posses a HUGE technological advange and go crushing down all the opposition. Now, I am storming ahead, building libaries and such. The scientist cities are always orderly and carry all the tile improvments: so when I get the railroad and farmlands, jumping up my food supply and popultion well before everyone else, I just jump ahead... the many scientists i have soon storm to the peak of the tech tree... and come crushing to a stoping halt with the "future tech". What use i have of this? Must i cancel all my research now, divert my scienctist and scarp my labs?
This continues on a too-limited techtree... and many other problems. I am still sure we need to change this.
The problem is, Firaxis.
Are you, octupus so sure of BR and SM ability to find the good ideas? I am not saying the lack the ability, I do say they wont even read the list to know.
Give a busy man SnowFire current list. You really think BR will start reading all 150+ sections, thinking about them, talking with the other guys about them... using them? Really? Cause I can't. They will brush thier eyes on it and press delete.
By presenting a fixed model, we don't say that Firaxis must take this. Nor are we presuming that everyone here and the rest of the world want that. We do, however, send a massage this is ROUGHLY how we would like to see it. No way thag Firaxis will say: "oh yeah, that seems good, lets just copy it". Oh no. We have both extrims. None of them will happen. They won't either give us total ignoring or total commitence. If we will show a full, working model, that will make them think. They will summarize it, take the better ideas, and we would have made an impact. Just collecting all-sort of ideas, some even contridicting and presenting a HUGE list will accomplish nothing. We are sure to be disregrard this way, the most important thread and the most open-to-change one. i, for one, belive the tech tree would be the most drasticly changed subject in civ III, as most other sections can hardly be majorily changes without breaking the forumula.
So, I inssist we need to create a model, or atleast a solid sketch of one. This way, will create something or atleast make an impact.
I belive we now must decide what final tech tree we need to show, agree toghter what useless and what is not.
Comprimse between the current tech tree favourite to the huge tech tree supporters ( me included ) to create something in between, an agreed tech-tree with about 120-150 good, not too-narrow techs.
I will soon post my suggestion to this. I would like people to help me by adding GOOD ideas and dumping what can be discarded.

[Flavor Dave]

Without being specific and picking on anyone, there are a huge number of bad ideas here, ideas that would make the game alot worse. Either too complicated, or bring too much luck into the game (prohibition?!?!) Also check out NotLikeTea posted 05-30-99 10:21 EDT for some wise words, from someone who has thought about how the game is actually played.

Some comments on good ideas--the Basic Theoretical Research tech is a great idea. It would really need to be thought out well, to avoid slicksters finding loopholes.

How often have any of you had mostly land, and so you find yourself using triremes to transport tanks? OK, that's a little extreme, but similar stuff happens, right? So you should have the option of forgoing seafaring, etc., until you need that stuff. Then you can research The Ocean, which would enable you to 1)need less beakers for water-y techs and 2)always have the option of getting a water tech next, as long as you have the prereqs. So, you get seafaring. Then you ALWAYS have the option of navigation coming up; none of that random chance where navigation isn't an option. Then, if you DO choose navigation, you ALWAYS have magnetism come up (presuming you have the prereqs). Then steam engine, for the ironclads. Then industrialization, for transports. Etc. Same thing for the horseback riding-warrior code-feudalism-chivalry-gunpowder line. (Although if you haven't discovered horseback riding, and you have all the pre-reqs for gunpowder, you need to rethink your strategy;-)

The idea of "free" or "cheap" techs for your allies--OK, it's realistic, but it doesn't fit with the game. One thing that frustrates me now is the manner in which the AIs cheat if I decide I really want to be technologically sophisticated. It totally eliminates the hyper-technologist approach, at deity anyway. What you suggest exacerbates this problem. I oppose any idea that narrows the strategic range.

A really cool idea was for the famous scientist. Maybe the first nation to discover mathematics could have Archimedes or somebody pop up, with the message "Archimedes discovers math in the city of X." And you could change the refrigeration tech, and associate it with Eli Whitney. That would be fun.

[Shining1]

Snowfire:
Re 38): I suggest that using Minor techs as a bonus for a civilisation being the first to discover a tech isn't a good idea.

Rather, they would help to balance research so that even the slowest civs still have some unique advantages AND have something to trade, even if they're a dozen or more discoveries behind (although this trade mightn't always be very useful - you don't really need an improved bow if you've moved on to gunpowder and conscription).

Minor techs (using the random discovery model) would be owned more frequently by the slower researchers, simply because these civs give the tech more time to appear (i.e a 5% chance per turn * 20 turns is more likely than a 5% chance per turn * 8 turns).

Shining1

[EnochF]

Robert Goddard discovers rocketry in Fukushima!

Leif Ericson discovers navigation in Minneapolis!

Henry Ford discovers mass production in Sverdlovsk!