Tweet
Continued from <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html">Technology 2.0</a>. Older threads may be found at <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000100.html">Technology 1.6</a>,<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000089.html">Technology 1.5</a>,<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000079.html">Technology 1.4</a>, <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000038.html">Technology 1.2</a>, and <a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000006.html">Technology 1.1</a>.
Welcome to the Technology 2.1 Thread. 2.0 died a peaceful death of old age, but with the summary now taking 4 pages, we had to move on, so to speak. He joins the graveyard with other old and honored threads such as 1.6 and 1.1 as well as stillborn infants such as 1.3. In any case, an immortality drug has been discovered for threads- multiple pages. Ideally this thread could go on forever in 50 page segments without ever interrupting bandwith. It will only die when list 2.0 dies.
In any case...
Here we try to formulate suggestions and improvements for the Technology and Science research part of CivIII. A summary of all the ideas is below. If a certain point really piques your interest, you might want to check the back threads to see the original debate on it.
The summary has been altered a good bit, since Brian wants "specific applications" of ideas. Unfortunately this has made it quite a bit bigger, though the "Actual Techs Suggested" section STILL needs fleshing out. So, there's a lot of new stuff- it's like Corn Flakes, it's the same as before at heart, but you should taste them again, for the first time. By the ancient technology "S Tih May Shun," the summary is 31.2% longer and (43+(e-2))% better, which is roughly 43.71828%, by the way. I've also redone the numbering system to be like it is on the HTML version of the list. Still, I may not have changed all the references to idea #x- if you catch any errors like that, or any spelling errors, be sure to post my mistake for all to see. After all, better you telling me than Brian, eh?
And as a reminder, I will not try to squash or destroy your idea; but I will try and summarize them fairly and impartially here in the summary and in the final letter to Brian.
Here's a quick overview of the summary-
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecI">Section I: The Research Process (How do I do research into technology?)</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecII">Section II: The Tech Tree (How do I get specific techs?)</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecIII">Section III: The Techs Themselves...</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecIV">Section IV: Issues of Technology Cost.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecV">Section V: Science and its relationship with Infrastructure and Society.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecVI">Section VI: Game Options set at the Beginning of the Game.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecVII">Section VII:Things NOT to do.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecVIII">Section VIII: Actual Techs Suggested.</a>
Without further ado, the summary...
Section I: The Research Process (How do I do research into technology?)
<a name="SecI"></a>
1.1) MULTIPLE TOPIC RESEARCH -- Many of the following ideas require that you be able to research several ideas at once. There must be some advantage to researching things in parallel rather than serially, or else no one will do it.
Specific Application: See ideas 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.6, and others.
1.2) TECHNOLOGICAL FIELDS -- Many of the following ideas require that the techs be placed into a small number of broad categories. Effort should probably be made to make the different fields roughly equal in terms of number and usefulness of techs (trying to put the old tech tree into these categories give Math&Physics a big advantage...). Note that CivII did this, but it was purely cosmetic. We want to have actual, different fields of research, perhaps researching one tech in each field using the MULTIPLE TOPIC RESEARCH idea.
SA: So far, the suggestions have been: Philosophy, Agriculture & Biology, Economics, Math & Physics, and Psychology/Theology. You would research 5 technologies at a time, one in each field. On the other hand, another system of 4-5 fields (or even 2 fields- "soft" science, philosophy, economics, & psychology, and "hard" science, math, physics, & biology) would surely work as well. Sp,e recommend against there being a "military" field; it would be too easy for someone to pour all their resources into it and unbalance the early game. See idea 1.4.
Another poster suggested Military, Economy/Applied, Social/Philosophical, Academic, and Biology/Farming. These would be tied to Social Engineering factors for their research rate; i.e., if you have +2 Military you research Military techs 20% faster. See idea 4.16.
1.3) DEVELOPMENT INERTIA -- It doesn't make sense that the same researchers who just gave you "Nuclear Fission" would be able to turn around and give you "Television, because they are only peripherally related. Scientists are specialized, and can't easily be pushed around to different fields. You should have multiple "teams", each of which is working on a different project. When they are done with one, they will research a second project in the same field at a faster rate than an unrelated field (or pay a higher cost to research an "outside our expertise" field -- the effect is the same). See 1.15 for a similar idea.
SA: You have 2 teams of researchers. One has just completed finishing a Math & Physics tech. If you tell it to research economics, it will take longer than another Math & Physics tech. This would be another way to simulate inertia and not wanting to change your priorities. The penalty would be less in early times (see idea 9), and perhaps you would receive another team of researchers in the modern age.
1.4) RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA' -- There should be several fields of research (see item 2) and you can set different allocations for the different fields (e.g. 25% of research points to Philosophy, 25% to Ag, 50% to Econ.) representing the number of scientists in that field and the money/work poured into it. However, whenever you change the allocation, you take a hit to the "efficiency" at which you research the topic you changed(i.e. number of research points per turn decreases), which is proportional to the magnitude of the change. This "efficiency hit" gradually diminishes over time until your society reaches "scientific equilibrium" at the new settings. This effect is likely to result in a "character" for different civs, because some will emphasize one field over another depending on their AI, and be unlikely to change because of the cost.
SA: Since the University of Planet shifted to such a strong emphasis on math & physics, they get those techs very fast since 40%of the scientists work on it, but their psychology research is in bad shape due to lack of funding and scientists. It would take a long while to get their psych research back on their feet, even if they increased their percentage allotment.
1.5) TECHNOLOGICAL "FIELDS" CONTAINING MINOR TECHS- 15-20 general fields of science are created to look into, like "Medicine," Agriculture," "Industrialization," and "Metallurgy," each containing many, many minor techs. You can choose which field (or fields, under option 1) you want to research (And, under ideas 2 &4, perhaps you research 3 fields at once each in different categories with different amounts of work on each), and you get minor techs from that field until you switch. This allows a far, far greater amount of minor techs (in Medicine alone, you might have "Anatomy," "Germ Theory," "Antiseptics," "Circulation of Blood..." It also allows you to have some direction to your research, but have some element of randomness still exist (see OFFSHOOT TECHS idea for a similar idea).
SA: I tell my scientists to research Industrialization, Agriculture, and Medicine. I periodically receive notices that I've discovered "Spinning Jenny," "Mass Production," the "Labor Union," "Diesel Trains," etc. in Industrialization, until I decide to switch that topic (or get told there are no more minor techs left there to research) to, say, Physics, where I start discovering "Radioactivity," "Relativity," and so on. Not all of these minor techs would have immediate benefits.
1.6) "GATEWAY" TECHS- If you have an era system (Antiquity, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern?), there should be a "gateway" tech for each new era that allows it to truly flourish. If you haven't researched that tech, then all other techs of the same era cost double the amount (or some other penalty).
SA: I can research The Corporation before Railroads, but very expensive (if Railroads is the gateway tech to the Industrial era).
1.7) AI TECH TRADING INTELLIGENCE -- Make sure that the AIs only make tech trades that make sense. Why trade for "Mass Transit" if you don't have "Automobile"?
SA: Limit players from getting techs they lack the prerequisites for.
1.8) STARTING POSITION DEPENDENT CIV SPECIALTIES -- When a civ is placed on the map, give it a tech specialty. This solves the problem of saying "the Phoenicians should get a seafaring bonus because they had a maritime empire" by instead giving a civ that starts close to water a maritime bonus (and if that happened to be the Phoenicians, then you could play the Phoenicians like the existed historically, although hopefully they'd last longer
). A tech specialty would be a small bonus to research in related fields (or simply a higher beginning allocation to a certain field, if the RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA' system is used). The bonus should disappear in modern times. (not necessary with SLIDER BAR system)
SA: The Babylonians start out with their technology slider bars higher for agriculture and philosophy, with no adjustment penalty of course. The English have a focus in Math & Physics as well as Economics. The Greeks have a large philosophy starting out point, maybe 35%. And so on.
Or, my civ's capital is a seaport, therefore all boats built by my civ cost 5 resources less for the early game. Or perhaps my civ started near two terrain squares with horses grazing. All horsemen and cavalry I make start one level of experience higher than normal. Etc.
Also, you give the user the option to decide which type of place to start in, so that he or she can determine character of civ if he wants. For instance, you can choose "Inland Plains," "Seacoast," "Island," etc.
1.9) HISTORICAL ERA SHOULD PLAY A ROLE -- Since in ancient times scholars studied a wide variety of fields (they were real Renaissance men) it makes sense to have tech specialization only play a role in more modern types of research (e.g. an ancient Greek philosopher might have contemplated both the role and practice of government as well as the laws of motion).
SA: Switching your slider bars incurs less of an efficiency penalty and a faster adaptation and equilibrium to the new settings in very early times.
1.10) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS - Scientific personalities, such as Einstein or Pasteur might provide some "flavor" to the scientific experience. Perhaps these are random events that give you one time bonuses?
SA: You get a message that "Pasteur has established a laboratory in Paris, science output doubles in Paris for next 12 turns in Paris" or "Edison sets up shop in Menlo Park, income and science increased by 20% for next 25 turns there," or even disasters like "Lysenko becomes research head of Agriculture & Biology, research only 20% effective throughout empire for next 25 turns." The names of the scientists could be randomized, or specific to each culture.
For that matter, this doesn't just have to be with scientists. The "Famous person" motif can be done with any group ("Florence Nightingale follows army, losses reduced 10% for duration of war").
And the number of turns doesn't have to be pre-set, either; rather, an optimum number of turns can be set, and a bell curve of randomized numbers falls around that number so you know that Pastuer will probably die/retire within 12 turns, but it might be 10, it might be 15, etc.
1.11) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS AS CHARACTERS - Some have suggested scientist "units" given as a bonus that can sit in a city and give extra research, but are prone to assassination or defection and only last so many turns. Some oppose this idea.
SA: Germany gets an Einstein unit, who increases technology output in Berlin until he leaves and defects to the USA when the government changes to Fascist, and he sits in a USA city of the US's choice and increases the science output there instead.
1.12) SERENDIPITOUS ADVANCES -- Technology discovered "accidentally". Basically a random event that gives you a tech advance.
SA: "Alexander Fleming uses poor lab technique, accidentally discovers penicillin." This would avert he goody-hut saving & reloading problem as well.
1.13) TECHS SHOULD BE HARDER TO RESEARCH -- It is unrealistic for a civ to have the ability to realistically research every tech in the game without help -- historically nobody has developed everything. Techs should have a higher cost relative to the number of research points that are expected to be produced by an empire than in previous games. Another poster says this feature takes away the option if isolationism. An alternative to this would be to dramatically ramp up the cost of the futuristic techs in the endgame, so you may only get 2 or 3 of them.
SA: With the future techs ridiculously expensive variant, your thoughts might be like this:
"Should I get eugenics or arcologies? Nanotechnology or Neurohacking? I can only research at most two before either the Unity launches or the Apocalypse happens (see idea XXX)"
1.14) BUDGET SCIENCE FROM TAX BUDGET- instead of the classic tax/science/luxuries system, count the science rate as taxes spent on science. Thus higher scientific spending has the same effect as high taxes- greater unhappiness, greater unemployment (if you're a Republican, at least).
SA: This is actually sort of in the current game engine, if you spend more on science, by definition you spend less on luxuries. But if the system is changed to a tax rate model where you set the tax rate through your empire, this could be important.
1.15) "PROBLEM BASED" TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH- you tell your science advisors what problems or needs your society has, like more food or better defense in battle, and they research something along those lines, perhaps getting you granaries or advanced irrigation or shields. Combined with redundant techs, this is another way different civs can have comparable units but wildly different technologies and philosophies (since the two civs found different ways of increasing defense in battle, say).
SA: Both the Federation and the Romulans are equally matched, but they have quite different styles and technology. Similarly, one civ might extensively use longbows, like the English, while the French would prefer primitive firearms.
This is rather similar to number 2, actually, and instead of choosing standard categories, you would choose "Find me a better weapon" or "Find me something to make my cities happier" as categories of research.
1.16) TRICKLE-DOWN LIST OF RESEARCH- You have a list of technologies, ordered based on as soon as a certain tech was made available to you. 10-60% of your research points goes to the first topic, 10-30% goes to your second topic, 5-20% goes to your third topic on the list, etc. The degree of specificity depends on things like how many libraries and universities you have. When you discover a tech, new techs you can now research go to the bottom of the queue and wait to be moved up. You can pay a certain efficiency cost to take techs closer to the bottom and move them farther up on the list.
SA: I just discovered Code of Laws, which makes Monarchy possible, but all the other level-2 and level-1 technologies that I could have researched before are above it. So I pay slight efficiency costs to move Monarchy higher up the list where it will get more research points.
1.17) ALL RESEARCH IS DONE BY SPECIALISTS- Farmers out in the field don't understand technology., to trade from roads shouldn't be used for research. If there is enough food being grown by them, then you should be able to stick people in the city to do nothing but sit around and research and eat the grown food. There would be several types of scientists as well (as time goes on), and they could only research in their fields. There would also be a "Soldier Specialist" discussed in other threads who's main purpose is to support units, but also increases the rate at which military techs are researched and decreases the rate peaceful techs are researched in that city.
Some strongly dissent at the idea of specialists in any case.
SA: Athens is a size 3 city now and I don't need it to get bigger, so I use my third unit of population to research things, like the specialist in CivII. When I hit the Renaissance, I have to diversify my philosophers, mathematicians, biologists, etc.
1.18) EDUCATION POINTS BASED SYSTEM- It was not uncommon in CivII to allocate 70% of your trade to research. Some say that science points should be scrapped all together, and "education points" should take their place. They would only occupy 10-30% of your trade allocation, and do a vastly different thing then standard research points. Your science research is determined independently of your size, education points, etc. It is only through buildings like libraries and universities that you can speed this rate. Education points determine how effective these buildings are. Furthermore, these are determined by a quasi-average, so large civs no longer dominate in research: small, perfectionist, well-funded city-states with lots of buildings and education points (think Ancient Greece) will research faster than large agrarian civs (like China).
SA: Maybe my base research rate is 100/turn, and it takes 1000 points to finish researching a technology. The percent of education divided by 10 is the multiplier. If you have only one city with just a library and a 10% education rate, then you get a mere 1 extra research per turn(1*1). Add a university and research lab and jack the education rate up to 30%, and you get (1+2+4)*3 =21. And if you have 8 cities like that, then you'd get 168 more research points, nothing to scoff at since you're gaining technologies more than twice as quickly now.
<a name="SecII"></a>
Section II: The Tech Tree (How do I get specific techs?)
2.0) LOTS OF TECHS -- Some people think we need lots, and I mean LOTS of techs. Others think that too many techs may be bad, because they would grow hard to differentiate. Another problem is that lots of techs would also mean lots of techs with no immediate help from them, aside from them being pre-requisites to other techs. Many of the tech suggestions below depend on this system.
SA: See Section VIII, the Tech List, for many of the proposed smaller technologies.
2.1) MULTIPLE PREREQS -- More than just two should be possible. This suggestion is probably implicit in some of the more ambitious prereq schemes.
SA: For the advance "Feudalism," have prerequisites of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Horseback Riding; pick any 2 of the 3.
2.2) MULTIPLE PATHS TO A PARTICULAR ADVANCE -- Instead of having rigid prerequisites that demand that a civ follow a particular research path to get to a tech, allow several different ways to achieve a particular advance. There are several alternatives...
SA: See below ideas.
2.3) BOOLEAN PREREQS -- The prerequisites should be specified with Boolean logic, i.e. AND, OR, NOT.
SA: The prerequisite for "Labor Union" might be "Capitalism" and "Assembly Line", because the workers band together naturally to fight for rights, OR "Communism" and "Mass Media", because the communist activists are able to convince large numbers of workers to bargain collectively. However, "Capitalism" and "Mass Media" wouldn't do anything to advance "Labor Unions" without the other techs. -- Labor Union [= (Capitalism AND Assembly Line) OR (Communism AND Mass Media).
2.4) PREREQUISITE POINTS -- In this suggestion, different technologies each contribute a certain point value to satisfying the prerequisite of a follow-on technology. Others oppose the system because it seems too complex.
SA: If you were interested in researching "Trench Warfare", you might need to gather 10 prereq points, where "Machine Guns" would give you 4, "Artillery" would give you 7, "Chemical Warfare" would give you 3, and "Conscription" would give you 3. Supporters of this concept argue that many of the other suggestions in this list can be incorporated into this new scheme (for example, DIPLOMATIC SYNNERGY can be implemented by giving you a prereq point for having diplomatic relations with a civ that already has the tech in question) and that it will allow multiple different strategies, making the new complexity worthwhile.
2.5) PREREQUISITE EQUIVALENCE -- instead of having a hard and fast prerequisite, allow some of them to be 'equivalence classed'.
SA: If you wanted to develop "Technocracy", you need the advance on "Microchip", as well as knowledge of three government types, such as "Democracy", "Fascism", and "Monarchy".
2.6) REDUNDANT TECHS -- have multiple different ways to achieve the same in-game effect with different technological paths. This allows different civilizations to take a less "cookie-cutter" approach to technological development, since there are no longer an "vital" technologies. (Maybe this and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY are redundant, or at least related?)
SA: There are multiple ways to get a 2-1-1 unit or a "makes one unhappy person content" building. For example, either "Religious Fanaticism" or "Professional Standing Army" techs might allow the 2-1-1 unit over the 1-1-1 unit. Under idea 15, you wouldn't get to choose. That way there won't be 6-8 identical Mediterranean style civilizations.
2.7) MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY -- Developing one technology might not make sense when another one already existed. Some posters seriously object to this idea.
SA: Once you've found one way of finding a particular use, your citizens refuse to "re-invent the wheel" and find another way. Examples would be "Green Industries" and "Advanced Toxic Waste Disposal."
2.8) RANDOM TECH TREE! - As long as there are multiple paths to each tech, there can be a probability that each path may or may not exist in a particular game. This adds to the excitement, and also the realism, since you can never quite be sure what your scientists will come up with until they come up with it. This is probably more easily accomplished if the REDUNDANT TECHS idea is implemented, since there is less likelihood of a civ being stranded without easy access to an important feature.
SA: You never know the "critical path" or fastest route to a powerful offense, say; for a desert civ you may end up with camel-riders by a path totally different from the way the Assyrians go their chariots.
This is perhaps an adjustable option.
2.9) OFFSHOOT TECHS -- Minor technologies related to Major Technologies (i.e. Major techs are the ones we are familiar with) that are received as a random bonus for researching the Major Tech. They're not available every game, and only give a small bonus. See idea 33, "Further Research on one Tech," for a different idea on how to implement this.
SA: Researching "Warrior Code" might give you "Longbow" technology, which would give you better archers. Hypothetically these "minor techs" could be linked to specific civs to give them "character".
2.10) FORBID 'OUT-OF-ORDER' TECH -- If you don't have the prereqs for a tech, you shouldn't be able to use it, even if you trade for it, etc.
SA: If (through some quirk of fate) Columbus has plans for an A-Bomb, and traded them to the Native Americans he met, it is unlikely that they would have been able to nuke Europe, since they didn't have the infrastructure to make use of the idea. Until at least one prerequisite is gained, the technology is useless to them. A suggested enhancement to this suggestion -- link things to a literacy level, or possibly "era" (e.g. bronze-age tribe can't use Renaissance idea).
2.11) CONCEPTS vs. APPLICATIONS -- Instead of an "all techs are equivalent" way of looking at the world, break techs into "concepts" and "applications".
SA: A "concept" might be "Gunpowder", while an "application" might be "Musket" or "Tunnel Construction". The application techs would all have a concept tech as a prerequisite, and the concept techs only have other concepts as their prereqs. This way, a civ can be very advanced in general principles, or concentrate on developing known techniques. Some have suggested simply allowing the application to research; others, being able to use the new application after paying a fee to develop it (similar to the prototype increase in cost in SMAC); still more, that you have a slider bar that goes between "new ideas" and "improvement of old ideas."
2.12) RANDOMIZED APPLICATIONS -- Techs shouldn't always give you the same benefit. This could be linked to different civilizations.
SA: The British and Chinese might only get "Fireworks" from musketeers one game, and the Lydians might only be able to research currency and not phalanxes from bronze working.
2.13) FURTHER RESEARCH ON ONE TECH / PHASED RESEARCH -- There should be more differentiation between "identical" techs. All of the major powers had "tanks" in World War II, but the designs of some countries were superior to those of others. You should be able to continue researching into already discovered techs to gain a better mastery of them. It has been suggested that a technology be "phased:" Have rudimentary, standard, and advanced levels. These would not perhaps apply to all techs. While possession of the rudimentary level of a tech takes the most time and allows you to research onward to other technologies, any military units produced by this tech should be very weak, and city improvements face penalties in cost and/or effectiveness. A Wonder of the World would require the advanced knowledge of a tech.
SA: If you could devote some research points to further "experimentation" with the technology "tank warfare" or "bows" after you've already received the advance, you might end up with bonuses to your tanks or archers. On the other hand, if you simply concentrate on the next thing, you may get musketeers or missiles faster, but in the mean time, your lower-quality archers/tanks may get slaughtered. In fact, the older, more improved model should be superior to just made technologies. (i.e. British longbowmen could rout arquebusiers).- new muskets should be almost useless until at least a little bit of research is done, after which they will rout older units.
This also coincides with the "Make Tech harder to Research Idea" because if you know you almost surely won't max out on tech during the game, there's more of an incentive to improve on older models.
Also, these should always be either bonuses or auto-upgrades, you shouldn't have to actually build a new unit when you research the next level of the technology.
2.14) MAKE TECH TREE REFLECT GAME SITUATION -- the current game situation should affect the tech tree.
SA: A land-locked civ is unlikely to develop "Navigation", and a civ with tons of mineral resources is unlikely to develop "Advanced Mining" or "Conservation." Therefore, they take penalties when they try to research it (case in point: convincing other Americans that the resources of the land are NOT unlimited).
2.15) SUPPORTING TECHS FOR OTHER IDEAS IN OTHER THREADS -- Some ideas in other threads give new abilities (such as specific types of specialist citizens) so it makes sense to have techs that bestow these abilities.
2.16) TECHNOLOGY GAIN BY USAGE- Thing you do on the map affect how your technology goes.
SA: If there are copper deposits near a city and they are worked for 10 turns, you get "Copper Working" (or perhaps a 10% bonus on the price of researching that per turn reached, to a maximum of a 50% discount?), and if you work a tin deposit for 10 turns after that, you get "Bronze Working." Similarly, working a terrain square with horses might be the only way to discover Horseback Riding (how else will your people know about them?).
If this idea is used, something similar to the MULTIPLE PREREQUISITES idea (2.1) should be used along with it, to insure that civs lacking the proper resources don't totally die, merely are forced to develop along a different path.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited October 26, 1999).]</font>
Welcome to the Technology 2.1 Thread. 2.0 died a peaceful death of old age, but with the summary now taking 4 pages, we had to move on, so to speak. He joins the graveyard with other old and honored threads such as 1.6 and 1.1 as well as stillborn infants such as 1.3. In any case, an immortality drug has been discovered for threads- multiple pages. Ideally this thread could go on forever in 50 page segments without ever interrupting bandwith. It will only die when list 2.0 dies.
In any case...
Here we try to formulate suggestions and improvements for the Technology and Science research part of CivIII. A summary of all the ideas is below. If a certain point really piques your interest, you might want to check the back threads to see the original debate on it.
The summary has been altered a good bit, since Brian wants "specific applications" of ideas. Unfortunately this has made it quite a bit bigger, though the "Actual Techs Suggested" section STILL needs fleshing out. So, there's a lot of new stuff- it's like Corn Flakes, it's the same as before at heart, but you should taste them again, for the first time. By the ancient technology "S Tih May Shun," the summary is 31.2% longer and (43+(e-2))% better, which is roughly 43.71828%, by the way. I've also redone the numbering system to be like it is on the HTML version of the list. Still, I may not have changed all the references to idea #x- if you catch any errors like that, or any spelling errors, be sure to post my mistake for all to see. After all, better you telling me than Brian, eh?
And as a reminder, I will not try to squash or destroy your idea; but I will try and summarize them fairly and impartially here in the summary and in the final letter to Brian.
Here's a quick overview of the summary-
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecI">Section I: The Research Process (How do I do research into technology?)</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecII">Section II: The Tech Tree (How do I get specific techs?)</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecIII">Section III: The Techs Themselves...</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecIV">Section IV: Issues of Technology Cost.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecV">Section V: Science and its relationship with Infrastructure and Society.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecVI">Section VI: Game Options set at the Beginning of the Game.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecVII">Section VII:Things NOT to do.</a>
<a href="http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000135.html#SecVIII">Section VIII: Actual Techs Suggested.</a>
Without further ado, the summary...
Section I: The Research Process (How do I do research into technology?)
<a name="SecI"></a>
1.1) MULTIPLE TOPIC RESEARCH -- Many of the following ideas require that you be able to research several ideas at once. There must be some advantage to researching things in parallel rather than serially, or else no one will do it.
Specific Application: See ideas 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 2.1, 2.6, and others.
1.2) TECHNOLOGICAL FIELDS -- Many of the following ideas require that the techs be placed into a small number of broad categories. Effort should probably be made to make the different fields roughly equal in terms of number and usefulness of techs (trying to put the old tech tree into these categories give Math&Physics a big advantage...). Note that CivII did this, but it was purely cosmetic. We want to have actual, different fields of research, perhaps researching one tech in each field using the MULTIPLE TOPIC RESEARCH idea.
SA: So far, the suggestions have been: Philosophy, Agriculture & Biology, Economics, Math & Physics, and Psychology/Theology. You would research 5 technologies at a time, one in each field. On the other hand, another system of 4-5 fields (or even 2 fields- "soft" science, philosophy, economics, & psychology, and "hard" science, math, physics, & biology) would surely work as well. Sp,e recommend against there being a "military" field; it would be too easy for someone to pour all their resources into it and unbalance the early game. See idea 1.4.
Another poster suggested Military, Economy/Applied, Social/Philosophical, Academic, and Biology/Farming. These would be tied to Social Engineering factors for their research rate; i.e., if you have +2 Military you research Military techs 20% faster. See idea 4.16.
1.3) DEVELOPMENT INERTIA -- It doesn't make sense that the same researchers who just gave you "Nuclear Fission" would be able to turn around and give you "Television, because they are only peripherally related. Scientists are specialized, and can't easily be pushed around to different fields. You should have multiple "teams", each of which is working on a different project. When they are done with one, they will research a second project in the same field at a faster rate than an unrelated field (or pay a higher cost to research an "outside our expertise" field -- the effect is the same). See 1.15 for a similar idea.
SA: You have 2 teams of researchers. One has just completed finishing a Math & Physics tech. If you tell it to research economics, it will take longer than another Math & Physics tech. This would be another way to simulate inertia and not wanting to change your priorities. The penalty would be less in early times (see idea 9), and perhaps you would receive another team of researchers in the modern age.
1.4) RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA' -- There should be several fields of research (see item 2) and you can set different allocations for the different fields (e.g. 25% of research points to Philosophy, 25% to Ag, 50% to Econ.) representing the number of scientists in that field and the money/work poured into it. However, whenever you change the allocation, you take a hit to the "efficiency" at which you research the topic you changed(i.e. number of research points per turn decreases), which is proportional to the magnitude of the change. This "efficiency hit" gradually diminishes over time until your society reaches "scientific equilibrium" at the new settings. This effect is likely to result in a "character" for different civs, because some will emphasize one field over another depending on their AI, and be unlikely to change because of the cost.
SA: Since the University of Planet shifted to such a strong emphasis on math & physics, they get those techs very fast since 40%of the scientists work on it, but their psychology research is in bad shape due to lack of funding and scientists. It would take a long while to get their psych research back on their feet, even if they increased their percentage allotment.
1.5) TECHNOLOGICAL "FIELDS" CONTAINING MINOR TECHS- 15-20 general fields of science are created to look into, like "Medicine," Agriculture," "Industrialization," and "Metallurgy," each containing many, many minor techs. You can choose which field (or fields, under option 1) you want to research (And, under ideas 2 &4, perhaps you research 3 fields at once each in different categories with different amounts of work on each), and you get minor techs from that field until you switch. This allows a far, far greater amount of minor techs (in Medicine alone, you might have "Anatomy," "Germ Theory," "Antiseptics," "Circulation of Blood..." It also allows you to have some direction to your research, but have some element of randomness still exist (see OFFSHOOT TECHS idea for a similar idea).
SA: I tell my scientists to research Industrialization, Agriculture, and Medicine. I periodically receive notices that I've discovered "Spinning Jenny," "Mass Production," the "Labor Union," "Diesel Trains," etc. in Industrialization, until I decide to switch that topic (or get told there are no more minor techs left there to research) to, say, Physics, where I start discovering "Radioactivity," "Relativity," and so on. Not all of these minor techs would have immediate benefits.
1.6) "GATEWAY" TECHS- If you have an era system (Antiquity, Renaissance, Industrial, Modern?), there should be a "gateway" tech for each new era that allows it to truly flourish. If you haven't researched that tech, then all other techs of the same era cost double the amount (or some other penalty).
SA: I can research The Corporation before Railroads, but very expensive (if Railroads is the gateway tech to the Industrial era).
1.7) AI TECH TRADING INTELLIGENCE -- Make sure that the AIs only make tech trades that make sense. Why trade for "Mass Transit" if you don't have "Automobile"?
SA: Limit players from getting techs they lack the prerequisites for.
1.8) STARTING POSITION DEPENDENT CIV SPECIALTIES -- When a civ is placed on the map, give it a tech specialty. This solves the problem of saying "the Phoenicians should get a seafaring bonus because they had a maritime empire" by instead giving a civ that starts close to water a maritime bonus (and if that happened to be the Phoenicians, then you could play the Phoenicians like the existed historically, although hopefully they'd last longer
). A tech specialty would be a small bonus to research in related fields (or simply a higher beginning allocation to a certain field, if the RESEARCH PRIORITY SLIDER BARS WITH 'INERTIA' system is used). The bonus should disappear in modern times. (not necessary with SLIDER BAR system) SA: The Babylonians start out with their technology slider bars higher for agriculture and philosophy, with no adjustment penalty of course. The English have a focus in Math & Physics as well as Economics. The Greeks have a large philosophy starting out point, maybe 35%. And so on.
Or, my civ's capital is a seaport, therefore all boats built by my civ cost 5 resources less for the early game. Or perhaps my civ started near two terrain squares with horses grazing. All horsemen and cavalry I make start one level of experience higher than normal. Etc.
Also, you give the user the option to decide which type of place to start in, so that he or she can determine character of civ if he wants. For instance, you can choose "Inland Plains," "Seacoast," "Island," etc.
1.9) HISTORICAL ERA SHOULD PLAY A ROLE -- Since in ancient times scholars studied a wide variety of fields (they were real Renaissance men) it makes sense to have tech specialization only play a role in more modern types of research (e.g. an ancient Greek philosopher might have contemplated both the role and practice of government as well as the laws of motion).
SA: Switching your slider bars incurs less of an efficiency penalty and a faster adaptation and equilibrium to the new settings in very early times.
1.10) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS - Scientific personalities, such as Einstein or Pasteur might provide some "flavor" to the scientific experience. Perhaps these are random events that give you one time bonuses?
SA: You get a message that "Pasteur has established a laboratory in Paris, science output doubles in Paris for next 12 turns in Paris" or "Edison sets up shop in Menlo Park, income and science increased by 20% for next 25 turns there," or even disasters like "Lysenko becomes research head of Agriculture & Biology, research only 20% effective throughout empire for next 25 turns." The names of the scientists could be randomized, or specific to each culture.
For that matter, this doesn't just have to be with scientists. The "Famous person" motif can be done with any group ("Florence Nightingale follows army, losses reduced 10% for duration of war").
And the number of turns doesn't have to be pre-set, either; rather, an optimum number of turns can be set, and a bell curve of randomized numbers falls around that number so you know that Pastuer will probably die/retire within 12 turns, but it might be 10, it might be 15, etc.
1.11) FAMOUS SCIENTISTS AS CHARACTERS - Some have suggested scientist "units" given as a bonus that can sit in a city and give extra research, but are prone to assassination or defection and only last so many turns. Some oppose this idea.
SA: Germany gets an Einstein unit, who increases technology output in Berlin until he leaves and defects to the USA when the government changes to Fascist, and he sits in a USA city of the US's choice and increases the science output there instead.
1.12) SERENDIPITOUS ADVANCES -- Technology discovered "accidentally". Basically a random event that gives you a tech advance.
SA: "Alexander Fleming uses poor lab technique, accidentally discovers penicillin." This would avert he goody-hut saving & reloading problem as well.
1.13) TECHS SHOULD BE HARDER TO RESEARCH -- It is unrealistic for a civ to have the ability to realistically research every tech in the game without help -- historically nobody has developed everything. Techs should have a higher cost relative to the number of research points that are expected to be produced by an empire than in previous games. Another poster says this feature takes away the option if isolationism. An alternative to this would be to dramatically ramp up the cost of the futuristic techs in the endgame, so you may only get 2 or 3 of them.
SA: With the future techs ridiculously expensive variant, your thoughts might be like this:
"Should I get eugenics or arcologies? Nanotechnology or Neurohacking? I can only research at most two before either the Unity launches or the Apocalypse happens (see idea XXX)"
1.14) BUDGET SCIENCE FROM TAX BUDGET- instead of the classic tax/science/luxuries system, count the science rate as taxes spent on science. Thus higher scientific spending has the same effect as high taxes- greater unhappiness, greater unemployment (if you're a Republican, at least).
SA: This is actually sort of in the current game engine, if you spend more on science, by definition you spend less on luxuries. But if the system is changed to a tax rate model where you set the tax rate through your empire, this could be important.
1.15) "PROBLEM BASED" TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH- you tell your science advisors what problems or needs your society has, like more food or better defense in battle, and they research something along those lines, perhaps getting you granaries or advanced irrigation or shields. Combined with redundant techs, this is another way different civs can have comparable units but wildly different technologies and philosophies (since the two civs found different ways of increasing defense in battle, say).
SA: Both the Federation and the Romulans are equally matched, but they have quite different styles and technology. Similarly, one civ might extensively use longbows, like the English, while the French would prefer primitive firearms.
This is rather similar to number 2, actually, and instead of choosing standard categories, you would choose "Find me a better weapon" or "Find me something to make my cities happier" as categories of research.
1.16) TRICKLE-DOWN LIST OF RESEARCH- You have a list of technologies, ordered based on as soon as a certain tech was made available to you. 10-60% of your research points goes to the first topic, 10-30% goes to your second topic, 5-20% goes to your third topic on the list, etc. The degree of specificity depends on things like how many libraries and universities you have. When you discover a tech, new techs you can now research go to the bottom of the queue and wait to be moved up. You can pay a certain efficiency cost to take techs closer to the bottom and move them farther up on the list.
SA: I just discovered Code of Laws, which makes Monarchy possible, but all the other level-2 and level-1 technologies that I could have researched before are above it. So I pay slight efficiency costs to move Monarchy higher up the list where it will get more research points.
1.17) ALL RESEARCH IS DONE BY SPECIALISTS- Farmers out in the field don't understand technology., to trade from roads shouldn't be used for research. If there is enough food being grown by them, then you should be able to stick people in the city to do nothing but sit around and research and eat the grown food. There would be several types of scientists as well (as time goes on), and they could only research in their fields. There would also be a "Soldier Specialist" discussed in other threads who's main purpose is to support units, but also increases the rate at which military techs are researched and decreases the rate peaceful techs are researched in that city.
Some strongly dissent at the idea of specialists in any case.
SA: Athens is a size 3 city now and I don't need it to get bigger, so I use my third unit of population to research things, like the specialist in CivII. When I hit the Renaissance, I have to diversify my philosophers, mathematicians, biologists, etc.
1.18) EDUCATION POINTS BASED SYSTEM- It was not uncommon in CivII to allocate 70% of your trade to research. Some say that science points should be scrapped all together, and "education points" should take their place. They would only occupy 10-30% of your trade allocation, and do a vastly different thing then standard research points. Your science research is determined independently of your size, education points, etc. It is only through buildings like libraries and universities that you can speed this rate. Education points determine how effective these buildings are. Furthermore, these are determined by a quasi-average, so large civs no longer dominate in research: small, perfectionist, well-funded city-states with lots of buildings and education points (think Ancient Greece) will research faster than large agrarian civs (like China).
SA: Maybe my base research rate is 100/turn, and it takes 1000 points to finish researching a technology. The percent of education divided by 10 is the multiplier. If you have only one city with just a library and a 10% education rate, then you get a mere 1 extra research per turn(1*1). Add a university and research lab and jack the education rate up to 30%, and you get (1+2+4)*3 =21. And if you have 8 cities like that, then you'd get 168 more research points, nothing to scoff at since you're gaining technologies more than twice as quickly now.
<a name="SecII"></a>
Section II: The Tech Tree (How do I get specific techs?)
2.0) LOTS OF TECHS -- Some people think we need lots, and I mean LOTS of techs. Others think that too many techs may be bad, because they would grow hard to differentiate. Another problem is that lots of techs would also mean lots of techs with no immediate help from them, aside from them being pre-requisites to other techs. Many of the tech suggestions below depend on this system.
SA: See Section VIII, the Tech List, for many of the proposed smaller technologies.
2.1) MULTIPLE PREREQS -- More than just two should be possible. This suggestion is probably implicit in some of the more ambitious prereq schemes.
SA: For the advance "Feudalism," have prerequisites of Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Horseback Riding; pick any 2 of the 3.
2.2) MULTIPLE PATHS TO A PARTICULAR ADVANCE -- Instead of having rigid prerequisites that demand that a civ follow a particular research path to get to a tech, allow several different ways to achieve a particular advance. There are several alternatives...
SA: See below ideas.
2.3) BOOLEAN PREREQS -- The prerequisites should be specified with Boolean logic, i.e. AND, OR, NOT.
SA: The prerequisite for "Labor Union" might be "Capitalism" and "Assembly Line", because the workers band together naturally to fight for rights, OR "Communism" and "Mass Media", because the communist activists are able to convince large numbers of workers to bargain collectively. However, "Capitalism" and "Mass Media" wouldn't do anything to advance "Labor Unions" without the other techs. -- Labor Union [= (Capitalism AND Assembly Line) OR (Communism AND Mass Media).
2.4) PREREQUISITE POINTS -- In this suggestion, different technologies each contribute a certain point value to satisfying the prerequisite of a follow-on technology. Others oppose the system because it seems too complex.
SA: If you were interested in researching "Trench Warfare", you might need to gather 10 prereq points, where "Machine Guns" would give you 4, "Artillery" would give you 7, "Chemical Warfare" would give you 3, and "Conscription" would give you 3. Supporters of this concept argue that many of the other suggestions in this list can be incorporated into this new scheme (for example, DIPLOMATIC SYNNERGY can be implemented by giving you a prereq point for having diplomatic relations with a civ that already has the tech in question) and that it will allow multiple different strategies, making the new complexity worthwhile.
2.5) PREREQUISITE EQUIVALENCE -- instead of having a hard and fast prerequisite, allow some of them to be 'equivalence classed'.
SA: If you wanted to develop "Technocracy", you need the advance on "Microchip", as well as knowledge of three government types, such as "Democracy", "Fascism", and "Monarchy".
2.6) REDUNDANT TECHS -- have multiple different ways to achieve the same in-game effect with different technological paths. This allows different civilizations to take a less "cookie-cutter" approach to technological development, since there are no longer an "vital" technologies. (Maybe this and MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY are redundant, or at least related?)
SA: There are multiple ways to get a 2-1-1 unit or a "makes one unhappy person content" building. For example, either "Religious Fanaticism" or "Professional Standing Army" techs might allow the 2-1-1 unit over the 1-1-1 unit. Under idea 15, you wouldn't get to choose. That way there won't be 6-8 identical Mediterranean style civilizations.
2.7) MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE TECHNOLOGY -- Developing one technology might not make sense when another one already existed. Some posters seriously object to this idea.
SA: Once you've found one way of finding a particular use, your citizens refuse to "re-invent the wheel" and find another way. Examples would be "Green Industries" and "Advanced Toxic Waste Disposal."
2.8) RANDOM TECH TREE! - As long as there are multiple paths to each tech, there can be a probability that each path may or may not exist in a particular game. This adds to the excitement, and also the realism, since you can never quite be sure what your scientists will come up with until they come up with it. This is probably more easily accomplished if the REDUNDANT TECHS idea is implemented, since there is less likelihood of a civ being stranded without easy access to an important feature.
SA: You never know the "critical path" or fastest route to a powerful offense, say; for a desert civ you may end up with camel-riders by a path totally different from the way the Assyrians go their chariots.
This is perhaps an adjustable option.
2.9) OFFSHOOT TECHS -- Minor technologies related to Major Technologies (i.e. Major techs are the ones we are familiar with) that are received as a random bonus for researching the Major Tech. They're not available every game, and only give a small bonus. See idea 33, "Further Research on one Tech," for a different idea on how to implement this.
SA: Researching "Warrior Code" might give you "Longbow" technology, which would give you better archers. Hypothetically these "minor techs" could be linked to specific civs to give them "character".
2.10) FORBID 'OUT-OF-ORDER' TECH -- If you don't have the prereqs for a tech, you shouldn't be able to use it, even if you trade for it, etc.
SA: If (through some quirk of fate) Columbus has plans for an A-Bomb, and traded them to the Native Americans he met, it is unlikely that they would have been able to nuke Europe, since they didn't have the infrastructure to make use of the idea. Until at least one prerequisite is gained, the technology is useless to them. A suggested enhancement to this suggestion -- link things to a literacy level, or possibly "era" (e.g. bronze-age tribe can't use Renaissance idea).
2.11) CONCEPTS vs. APPLICATIONS -- Instead of an "all techs are equivalent" way of looking at the world, break techs into "concepts" and "applications".
SA: A "concept" might be "Gunpowder", while an "application" might be "Musket" or "Tunnel Construction". The application techs would all have a concept tech as a prerequisite, and the concept techs only have other concepts as their prereqs. This way, a civ can be very advanced in general principles, or concentrate on developing known techniques. Some have suggested simply allowing the application to research; others, being able to use the new application after paying a fee to develop it (similar to the prototype increase in cost in SMAC); still more, that you have a slider bar that goes between "new ideas" and "improvement of old ideas."
2.12) RANDOMIZED APPLICATIONS -- Techs shouldn't always give you the same benefit. This could be linked to different civilizations.
SA: The British and Chinese might only get "Fireworks" from musketeers one game, and the Lydians might only be able to research currency and not phalanxes from bronze working.
2.13) FURTHER RESEARCH ON ONE TECH / PHASED RESEARCH -- There should be more differentiation between "identical" techs. All of the major powers had "tanks" in World War II, but the designs of some countries were superior to those of others. You should be able to continue researching into already discovered techs to gain a better mastery of them. It has been suggested that a technology be "phased:" Have rudimentary, standard, and advanced levels. These would not perhaps apply to all techs. While possession of the rudimentary level of a tech takes the most time and allows you to research onward to other technologies, any military units produced by this tech should be very weak, and city improvements face penalties in cost and/or effectiveness. A Wonder of the World would require the advanced knowledge of a tech.
SA: If you could devote some research points to further "experimentation" with the technology "tank warfare" or "bows" after you've already received the advance, you might end up with bonuses to your tanks or archers. On the other hand, if you simply concentrate on the next thing, you may get musketeers or missiles faster, but in the mean time, your lower-quality archers/tanks may get slaughtered. In fact, the older, more improved model should be superior to just made technologies. (i.e. British longbowmen could rout arquebusiers).- new muskets should be almost useless until at least a little bit of research is done, after which they will rout older units.
This also coincides with the "Make Tech harder to Research Idea" because if you know you almost surely won't max out on tech during the game, there's more of an incentive to improve on older models.
Also, these should always be either bonuses or auto-upgrades, you shouldn't have to actually build a new unit when you research the next level of the technology.
2.14) MAKE TECH TREE REFLECT GAME SITUATION -- the current game situation should affect the tech tree.
SA: A land-locked civ is unlikely to develop "Navigation", and a civ with tons of mineral resources is unlikely to develop "Advanced Mining" or "Conservation." Therefore, they take penalties when they try to research it (case in point: convincing other Americans that the resources of the land are NOT unlimited).
2.15) SUPPORTING TECHS FOR OTHER IDEAS IN OTHER THREADS -- Some ideas in other threads give new abilities (such as specific types of specialist citizens) so it makes sense to have techs that bestow these abilities.
2.16) TECHNOLOGY GAIN BY USAGE- Thing you do on the map affect how your technology goes.
SA: If there are copper deposits near a city and they are worked for 10 turns, you get "Copper Working" (or perhaps a 10% bonus on the price of researching that per turn reached, to a maximum of a 50% discount?), and if you work a tin deposit for 10 turns after that, you get "Bronze Working." Similarly, working a terrain square with horses might be the only way to discover Horseback Riding (how else will your people know about them?).
If this idea is used, something similar to the MULTIPLE PREREQUISITES idea (2.1) should be used along with it, to insure that civs lacking the proper resources don't totally die, merely are forced to develop along a different path.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited October 26, 1999).]</font>
Comment