Announcement

**Maniac** · November 11, 2006, 14:15

Personally I think just rebalancing a couple of the vanilla SMAC tech tree issues wouldn’t suffice at all to create a good tech tree for C4AC. Instead I think a new tech tree should be created from the ground up if you want added value from the good new Civ4 features. So I think it’s pointless to comment on specific issues with the original tech tree. That's why I'd like to give some guidelines I used while creating the new tech tree for SMAniaC. To me these seem rather obvious, but I’ve seen few other trees who don’t continuously violate these “principles”, so I guess it has value to write them down.

The basic principle is “one choice = no choice”. For a good tech tree the player has to be constantly presented with multiple interesting choices on how to develop his civ or faction. That’s all you have to keep in mind. All the rest I’m writing here is just a bit of elaboration on how you could do that.

One major difference between Civ4 and SMAC I should mention right away here, because it affects tech tree creation greatly (and actually also makes a lot of what I’m writing here irrelevant :-s ). In Civ4 you can give each tech its own tech cost which isn’t affected by in-game factors. In SMAC the tech cost depends on how many techs you have already researched. This creates a very strict condition for good tech tree creation: every tech (or at least tech b-line) should be equally attractive.

This condition isn’t met at all in the original SMAC tech tree. There it is always best to research towards the Industrial Automation, Environmental Economics and Doctrine: Air Power b-lines. Most of the goodies are concentrated there, so the rest of the tech tree is neglected until the three aforementioned tech goals are reached. People often even refuse to trade for some techs because the tech cost increase outweighs the benefits some tech gives. In SMAniaC I feel this is less the case. There I’m practically always happy to get or trade any tech, despite the tech cost increase. (I could write something about each tech and every change I made from SMAC to SMAniaC as examples of rebalancing, but that would be pointless if one is unfamiliar with SMAniaC.) Tech cost increase due to number of techs doesn’t exist in Civ4, so there the condition is much less strict: the cost of a tech should correspond to the benefits it gives. Just decrease the cost of a less valuable tech. Something else I want to note: if all techs are equally attractive, it becomes impossible for the AI to make stupid research choices => better AI behaviour yay!

Unlike original SMAC where the AI researches eg Polymorphic Software early…

An addendum I kept in mind to the guideline of keeping all techs equally attractive: techs should keep their value even if someone beat you to researching that tech first and already built the wonder/secret project that tech gives access to. Put in other words, when deciding if two techs or b-lines are equally attractive do not count wonders as they are one-time bonuses. Ideal would of course be if all b-lines have a wonder as a reward for being the first to research it. More concretely this means that in my SMAniaC tech tree all techs (with the exception of one endgame tech) offer some benefits besides a possible secret project. Vanilla SMAC techs such as Optical Computers or Applied Relativity are big no-no’s IMO.

I also made sure not to give more than one one-time bonus (ie a secret project or in Civ4 also a Great Person) to a single tech. In the original SMAC tech tree this means Mind-Machine Interface and Self-Aware Machines are bad as they both give access to two secret projects. What’s the point of that? One secret project is enough as a reward for being the first to research the tech. It would be better to grant that secret project to another tech and create one more interesting choice and reward elsewhere. Once again this principle can be treated much less strict in Civ4 though, as there you can give wonders multiple tech prerequisites.

Another big recommendation I’d like to make is to create branches in a tech tree, that allow a certain degree of specialization. From the perspective of one game, specialization basically means that it’s a best to closely follow a certain research path. This means once you’ve chosen a certain path somewhere in the beginning of the game, the following choices become fewer and less interesting. This kinda runs counter to what I’ve advocated until now. But of course from the perspective of several games, specialization means that you can pick one faction and play successfully a certain way, and play a second game with another faction, and have the choice to play a successful game in a completely different way. This is largely inexistent in original SMAC where the IndAut-EnvEcon-D:AP research path is more or less the best no matter what faction you play. So in short, in addition to all techs being equally attractive, on a larger level all strategies should be equally attractive. And before creating a tech tree, you should have a clear picture of what different strategies you want to include in your game. In SMAniaC I hope I made fungal terraforming much more viable as an alternative to the usual tree farms and condenser farms. In vanilla Civ4 the goal should be to make a great people focus as attractive as cottage spamming (something which they failed to do IMO).

On the subject of specialization and AI behaviour, clear branches significantly improve AI research strategy. For instance, when you look at the SMAC tech poster, the Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer categories might as well have been assigned randomly. On the other hand, a quick glance on the SMAniaC tech tree should (hopefully ;-) immediately reveal a distinct Explore branch and a Discover/Conquer branch. Here the focuses the AIs has are relevant and my factions follow very well the tech branches I want them to follow.

If you’re creating branches, it’s a good idea to include some military benefits in every branch. Otherwise one would be forced to switch out of your specialized b-line and have to start researching the military branch. In SMAniaC, while most stuff can be gotten from the Discover-Conquer branch and therefore is the best choice if you have conquest ambitions, some conventional weapons and armour also become available in the Explore and Build branches. And of course the Explore branch also offers psionic warfare as an alternative, much earlier and cheaper than in vanilla SMAC. Vanilla Civ4 also does a good job at offering military benefits at about any research path you follow. This is not at all the case in vanilla SMAC. In a game with decent opponents, you have only one choice err I mean no choice but to rush to needlejets and choppers asap.

This of course counts for every must-have benefit without which it is almost impossible to play the game, not only the military. So the above guideline could be generalized to: "If you’re creating branches, it’s a good idea to include in every major branch a different yet similar benefit of everything that would be too unbalanced to have in only one branch." To give some examples: infinite movement in SMAC. I gave magtubes to the Discover-Conquer branch, but Psi Gates to the Explore branch. I gave Paradise Gardens (nut sats in SMAniaC) and Resonance Grids (energ sats) to the Explore branch, and Cloudscoops (min sats) to a Build-Conquer b-line. Of course these are just SMAC-specific examples. In Civ4 magtubes could simply have limited movement like railroads, instead of SMAC's infinite movement.

To show how I implemented the ‘the more choices the better’ principle on social engineering:
In vanilla SMAC there is really only choice on the Values SE line: Wealth. This is because Wealth can be researched fastest, comes coupled with the great benefit of crawlers, and the alternative are higher level techs. In SMAniaC Wealth/Plutocrat stays with Industrial Automation, but that tech is made somewhat less valuable by moving Hab Complexes and the Planetary Transit System to other techs. More importantly, Power/Junta is moved down to a level 2 tech (and only gives -1 Industry), so you have an alternative much faster. And instead of the default setting giving no benefits, you already start the Values/Ruling Elite line with the Technocrat ruling elite (Knowledge basically). So instead of one/no, you have three choices: research nothing, research High Intensity Lasers or research Industrial Automation.

That’s all I can think of to say right now. I hope it’s of some use. Perhaps it’s too general, and it would be better to write down some concrete examples - I don’t know. In any case, my bottom point, personally I feel that we should be willing to do as many gameplay changes as we like in C4:AC. No need to have a clone!

**Blake** · November 12, 2006, 07:31

I've also been thinking on this issue. What I think we should do is keep the shape of the tech tree. However the arrows are cluttered, so what we should do is make both "arrows" and "little icons in the corner" equivilant as and-prereq, using the arrow for the "most significant connection" (like Gene Splicing -> EcoEng -> Env.eco would be linked by arrows).

Here's a (slightly messy) mockup:

Now as for putting stuff in the tech tree. Using the CIV unit model:
The Scout Rover would be on Doctrine:Mobility
The Impact Rover would be on Nonlinear Mathematics, with the additional pre-req of Doctrine:Mobility.
And so on. Also if we decide a unit comes too early (is too beelinable) it could be given more pre-req techs, for example making Crawlers require both Industrial Automation and Polymorphic Software... (altough crawlers should definitely be nerfed hardcore).

Tech Costs:
Use a tech cost progression much like CIV4, and have the Headquarters give +8 energy to boost early research.

In SMAC the increasing tech costs made a degree of sense, if you didn't have both Nonlinear maths and Doctrine:Mobility you could build Impact Infantry rather than Impact rovers. With a CIV style tech tree you need to research more techs to get a given military effectiveness so it's okay that the early techs stay cheap.

Those are my thoughts for now....

**Rubin** · November 12, 2006, 09:10

Originally posted by Maniac
Personally I think just rebalancing a couple of the vanilla SMAC tech tree issues wouldn’t suffice at all to create a good tech tree for C4AC. Instead I think a new tech tree should be created from the ground up if you want added value from the good new Civ4 features.

I think you are correct that simply changing a few of the SMAC/X technologies would not suffice to do a decent revised technology tree. But would you be advocating for keeping the original "shape of the tech tree" as per Blake's suggestion?

I would initially think that re-using the original shape of the technology tree could prove beneficial. There are two main reasons for this:

1) We will be preserving the SMAC/X "feel" of technological progression. SMAC/X players will discover a revised technology tree, but not an "entirely" different one. Different, but still familiar.

2) We need something concrete to work with. The default technology tree may serve this purpose. Otherwise we'd have to re-invent a whole new technology tree (and I, personally, wouldn't know where to start). Hence, using the default shape could reduce the workload significantly.

Originally posted by Blake
[...] the arrows are cluttered, so what we should do is make both "arrows" and "little icons in the corner" equivilant as and-prereq, using the arrow for the "most significant connection" (like Gene Splicing -> EcoEng -> Env.eco would be linked by arrows).

I did a "cheap" change to the "tool" mod reenabling the "or" prerequisites. As long as technologies have only two prerequisites it doesn't seem to matter if one is an "or" prerequisite; both technologies will be counted as "and" prerequisites. To this, I simply switched some of the "And/Or" parameters in the python code and now the "or" prerequisite is shown in the technology box and only the "and" line is drawn.

I'll see if I can do an in-game screenshot of the "mockup".

**Blake** · November 12, 2006, 09:38

I did a "cheap" change to the "tool" mod reenabling the "or" prerequisites. As long as technologies have only two prerequisites it doesn't seem to matter if one is an "or" prerequisite; both technologies will be counted as "and" prerequisites. To this, I simply switched some of the "And/Or" parameters in the python code and now the "or" prerequisite is shown in the technology box and only the "and" line is drawn.

This is correct.

The only difference is that OR arrows give a cost discount (which means every tech in CIV is discounted) but that's easy to change by setting the discount to 0.

2) We need something concrete to work with. The default technology tree may serve this purpose. Otherwise we'd have to re-invent a whole new technology tree (and I, personally, wouldn't know where to start). Hence, using the default shape could reduce the workload significantly.

This would be my main reason for going with the same shape too. There's also nothing wrong with the SMAC tech tree.

I would favor with going with the SMAC vanilla tech tree, since I don't feel the SMAX techs add that much and I don't feel we need the aliens at all for C4:AC, since we'll be introducing CIV concepts which work much better for the human factions. That's my opinion anyway (I would like to have the SMAX human land factions mainly because I love the Angels and Drones)

**Rubin** · November 12, 2006, 14:26

I am currently using the SMACX technology tree as template, simply because this is the technology tree that I ported to Civ4.

The technology costs reflect Blake's suggested formula (having the headquarters producing +8 energy):

Cost = 50 + 25 * L^2
where L is the tech level.

I think the less cluttered result of using primary and secondary technology prerequisites works very well and allows for a great deal of complexity without making the technology tree impossible to navigate.

Now, I could try implementing all the tier 1-4 facilities, Secret Projects, units, Social Engineering choices, etc. (as far as basic Civ4 editing allows). But this would mean a lot of work that probably would need severe refinement.

Would it be a viable alternative to use the default SMACX technology tree layout instead and then discussing assigning the various facilities, units, tech costs, etc. onto that structure?

Edit: Here's a screenshot of the tier 1-3 technologies (those that could fit the screen) using the new prerequisite formula.

Edit 2: I went ahead and assigned (somewhat randomly) the units, buildings, civics, etc. of the default Civ4 tier 1-3 technologies and updated the image accordingly.

My Civ4 technology template has two full tech trees: Default Civ4 and SMACX. I am slowly working my way through all the referenced files and replacing the default Civ4 technologies with the SMACX ones--while still preserving all the main gameplay options (civics, handicaps, units, victory conditions, etc.).

The reason behind this approach is having a stable and playable mod.

I should be able to "clean" the files up to tier 5 technologies relatively quickly. The next step could be designing units to go with the early technologies (tier 1-4); and after that facilities. The result would be an awkward mix of SMACX and Civ4, but it would be playable.

Edit 3: The Civ4 game mechanics offer quite a lot of flexibility in facility design. This can make a tentative design approach easier. In the attached screenshot, I added the Recycling Tanks facility (available with Biogenetics). Once built, the Recycling Tanks facility adds 1 commerce, 1 research, 1 production and stores 10% food after city growth. This is achieved partly by adding a free Priest and having the facility generate -3 GP points. Edit 4: Blake has kindly pointed out how to do the Recycling Tanks facility. By changing the iYield values the facility now properly adds +1 food, +1 commerce and +1 production.

**Rubin** · November 15, 2006, 17:37

I've cleaned the entire tech tree and all the referenced files; replacing the default Civ4 technologies.

There are a few very minor visual bugs that I haven't been able to figure out, but the mod is playable and I've encountered no errors during my brief playtests.

While working my way through the SMACX technology tree, I got the impression that the technology tree was designed with distinct technology branches in mind; though the secondary prerequisites seem to distort these branches considerably. Additionally, the branches seem more distinct for the late-game technologies.

Originally posted by Maniac
If you’re creating branches, it’s a good idea to include some military benefits in every branch. Otherwise one would be forced to switch out of your specialized b-line and have to start researching the military branch.

I've been trying to figure out how to implement this principle:

Conquer: Heavy weaponry, medium armor, slow chassis.
Explore: Medium weaponry, poor armor, fast chassis.
Discover: Poor weaponry, poor armor, medium chassis. (Additional special abilities.)
Build: Poor weaponry, heavy armor, slow chassis.

Any comments?

**GeoModder** · November 16, 2006, 08:30

Perhaps the "branching" Maniac refered to could partly be achieved by creating new links to another branch of research. For example researching Centauri Genetics could give insight in Retroviral Engineering or Biomachinery, allowing to sidestep a bunch of earlier-tier techs. This is just an example to stress my point, I know in the original techtree CG is already ahead or equal of both other techs.

I suppose by implementing such links the original techtree can be mostly kept, while achieving more variety.

**Rubin** · November 16, 2006, 09:25

Originally posted by GeoModder
Perhaps the "branching" Maniac refered to could partly be achieved by creating new links to another branch of research. For example researching Centauri Genetics could give insight in Retroviral Engineering or Biomachinery, allowing to sidestep a bunch of earlier-tier techs. This is just an example to stress my point, I know in the original techtree CG is already ahead or equal of both other techs.

I suppose by implementing such links the original techtree can be mostly kept, while achieving more variety.

The basic idea of simply linking the branches at certain technologies seems to be prevalent in SMACX. The result is a set of significantly distorted branches; as Maniac points out (referring to the poster) "the Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer categories might as well have been assigned randomly."

Having a higher tier technology in a branch leading "back" to a lower tier technology in a different branch may be a viable solution in keeping the branches distinct. This can be done using "or" prerequisites. So, for example, you are able to skip a few lower tier technologies in one branch if you are already very advanced in another branch. The balance can be further refined by adding additional requirements to the units, facilities, etc. that become available. I think this could be particularly interesting for Secret Projects requiring (almost) "complete" research in a specific branch--preventing sidestepping in order to "steal" a Secret Project.

I've experimented a bit with recolors of the default Civ4 units to go with the SMAC/X unit designs--at least until we are able to produce some convincing 3D unit graphics. I've been rather frustrated having archers and warriors running around while I am researching Polymorphic Software. Here's a quick recolor of the Mark V tank replacing workers and settlers:

**Darrell01** · November 16, 2006, 11:52

Hot damn, Rubin! That looks awesome! I haven't played Civ4 tho, so that looks really cool to me. Perhaps you could rename the archers to needler squad. I remember there being needlers in the official storyline. Maybe laser needlers. Dunno tho. That sounds kinda cheezy.

For your weapon problem, I'm not sure how Civ4 works. Can you slap on a level 4 weapon (steel swords) and level 6 armor (full plate mail) on a rover (I'm guessing horsemen) chassis? If its like that, I'm sure you could just run the numbers for the techs. Or is it like old civ where you make a 3/2 legion and it a set unit?

**Rubin** · November 16, 2006, 13:12

Originally posted by Darrell01
Can you slap on a level 4 weapon (steel swords) and level 6 armor (full plate mail) on a rover (I'm guessing horsemen) chassis?

Yes, I am almost certain that is possible. Civ4 offers a lot of flexibility in design options and "conventional" combat units are probably fairly simple to implement. I don't know about psi combat, but I should think it possible to implement too.

We are currently unable to do a Design Workshop and all units need to be predefined. The promotion system of Civ4 may be used to further specialize these predefined units; resulting in a fair level of unit design complexity.

**Kuciwalker** · November 16, 2006, 15:34

Why can't a design workshop be done with the SDK?

**Rubin** · November 16, 2006, 16:17

Kuciwalker, it may very well be possible to do a Design Workshop using the SDK; however, combining the different unit graphics components within the game seems highly problematic. There may be an option to use the "UnitMeshGroups" system to combine the different modules, or perhaps something else. I don't know.

I think this could apply to "elevation terraforming" too. It may be possible to implement the mechanics of lowering and raising terrain, but the graphical representation seems... highly problematic.

**Darrell01** · November 16, 2006, 19:09

Originally posted by Rubin
I've been trying to figure out how to implement this principle:

Conquer: Heavy weaponry, medium armor, slow chassis.
Explore: Medium weaponry, poor armor, fast chassis.
Discover: Poor weaponry, poor armor, medium chassis. (Additional special abilities.)
Build: Poor weaponry, heavy armor, slow chassis.

Any comments?

Ok, you have your base militia unit, 1/1/1...

Conquer: +3/+2/+0 --> 4/3/1
Explore: +2/+1/+2 --> 3/2/3
Discover: +1/+1/+1 +special ability - See below. --> 2/2/2
Build: +1/+3/+0 --> 2/4/1

For the ability, I would go down the list, Conquer, Explore, Build, Conquer, Explore, etc... that the unit would be strong against its main unit. for a specific technological "era". For instance, the unit might first have +100% defense vs infantry when defending, or something, so you know it will definitely beat that first 4/3/1 of Conquer. Then the next unit will beat the fast unit of Explore, and then one that beats out the heavy armor unit of Build in the third Era. Then it restarts, or perhaps it will do well vs the Explore and the Build units, but not the Conquer, and then the next will do well vs the Conquer and Build units, but not the Explore, and then finally, it will do well vs Conquer and Explore, but not Build. And the final one will do well vs all three. And if you can't figure out quite how to do it with the special that does well vs 2 tech lines, give the unit of the one that it doesn't do well against a special ability that will trump the Discover unit.

Build units might have not really offensive of defensive abilities, like non-leathal methods, or clean reactor.

Perhaps you could make use of those hand to hand melee units in Civ4 by giving them futuristic melee weapons. It takes a lot of energy to fire a laser gun or laser cannon. Perhaps they make things like vibroswords, or plasma-blades. They take less energy to use "hypothetically" and can be used over and over again in succession if you are meleeing in the thick of things.

Now for the next era, the first base unit was 1/1/1, well now your base unit is 2/2/1. Tier 2 will be
Conquer: 5/4/1
Explore: 4/3/3
Discover: 3/3/3 +special
Build: 3/5/1

And now perhaps give them a unit like one of the others, or have an "or" prerequisite (like you said earlier, I like that idea) that backtracks to another line. Conquer might go to Explore, which goes to Discovery, which goes to Build, which goes to Conquer. That way you can always know you can get another tech line by going high enuf in your techline. That will ensure that you don't have to make too many predefined units.

I'm not sure if you can do this, but can you make a tech discovery that confers a +1 attack or defense bonus on all units you have? This might be another alternative. You have a unit with impact rifles. Well, it isnt that hard to give them all a synthmetal flak vest so they might not die so fast out there. This isn't the middle ages, although with vibroswords...

Also, with a technological era, instead of just straight up better attack, defense, and move, you could give them this...

Conquer: +attack special ability
Explore: +movement special ability
Discover: +subterfuge or ranged special ability
Build: +defensive special ability

Is this helpful?

**Blake** · November 16, 2006, 20:17

I had an idea for this...

Like say there are the Scout Rover (2-2), and Impact Rover (5-2) chassis. No Recon Rover. (this would be starting at str 2 for no weapon rather than str 1)

But on Applied Physics, create a promotion ("Upgrade"), called Laser Turret. It gives +1 Strength. That then upgrades the Scout Rover to 3-2, turning it into a real combat unit. On an Impact Rover, it upgrades it to the strength of a Gatling Rover.

I'll post an idea for units a little later...

Announcement

[C4:AC] Revised tech tree discussion

[C4:AC] Revised tech tree discussion

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment