DESIGN: Technology Tree

[Maquiladora]

General ideas for redesigning the tree:

1. Create balance between units, governments, tile imps, buildings and wonders through total research costs (start of tree to advance) compared to benefit/s of target advance.
2. Add as little as possible.
3. Keep as much as possible.
4. Limit benefits to 2 units, 1 building, 1 wonder, and 1 government per advance, with no more than 4 total per advance. This is at least following the rules of the current tree, except Gaia Controller which has 2 buildings.

Originally posted by LemurMadness
I don't want to go too offtopic in the Unit Values thread, so here it goes:

I was making a sketch about limiting Advances to 4 "Child" Advances , but then I noticed that the HoverInfantry is supposed to be the most powerful unit on the game (as the game states). However, we are making the Plasmatica, a defensive, counter-HI unit that would help people prevent offensive, mass strikes and blitz-like attacks from the enemy without spending much costs on building the highly expensive, slow moving Leviathan.

Everything's ok, but there's something: Plasma Weaponry will have 3 units, which is IMHO, too much. I've got a suggestion, is that we move the Plasma Destroyer into a new advance that requires Advanced Naval Tactics, which is Plasma (Naval) Engineering.

Didn't we say Plasmatica enabled at Chaos Theory? Because Plasma Weaponry would be too late to properly counter Hover Inf. I know it's weird not to have it at Plasma Weaponry, but I just went along with it.

Of course if we say Plasmatica at Plasma Weaponry, we can move Plasma Destroyer to some Plasma naval tech like you say.

Also, well I switched Nationalism with Gunpowder, and backwards, so Gunpowder gives Fascism. What about making Infantry Tactics ( Gunpowder + Feudalism? ) gives Fascism ( Infantry Tactics + Nationalism ), that way restricting Gunpowder to 4 "Child" Advances? (I think that's not the way it's put in the Apolyton Pack but then again I guess looks ok since it's supposed to be an early modern govemernt?)

Fascism, Communism and (Modern) Democracy should come around the same time IMO, so you have to choose between the 3, and not just go for Fascism because it's the earliest with a higher city limit. Making Fascism require Nationalism and Mass Media moves it toward the other 2 governments.

Although Fascism and Communism are dead-end techs, this can be reflected in their extra "short-term" qualities (martial law, military support etc) over Democracy.

So here's the "sketch":

+ Feudalism ( Stays the same ) = Pikemen, Knight
Archery ( Geometry + Feudalism ) = Longbowman
Bureaucracy ( Stays the same ) = Samurai
Agricultural Revolution ( Stays the same )

How about calling "Archery" "Composite Bow" instead? Archery implies you haven't already got Ballistics and the Archer.

This still leaves us with the problem (in historical terms) of Horse Riding requiring Ballistics though.

+ Gunpowder ( Stays the same ) = Gives InfantryMen
Cavalry Tactics ( Stays the same ) = Gives Cavalry
Infantry Tactics ( Archery + Gunpowder ) = Gives Skirmisher
Cannon Making ( Stays the same ) = Gives Cannon
Explosives ( Stays the same ) = Gives Artillery

Infantry Tactics + Nationalism = Fascism

Adding the Infantry Tactics Advance, and changed Fascism. Archery was what I would consider the most proper option for Infantry Tactics, that would be almost the same training techniques but with guns? :crazy:

I thought Gunpowder gave Musketeer and Infantry Tactics Infantryman?

What's wrong with Infantry Tactics just requiring Gunpowder?

Also what's "Archery"? If it's Ballistics then Gunpowder already requires Ballistics through that branch.

+ Plasma Weaponry ( Stays the same ) = Gives Plasmatica, Leviathan
Plasma Engineering ( Plasma Weaponry + Adv. Naval Tactics ) = Gives Plasma Destroyer
Nano Warfare ( Stays the same ) = Gives Infector

I agree with those.

[Ekmek]

Re: DESIGN: Technology Tree

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Fascism, Communism and (Modern) Democracy should come around the same time IMO, so you have to choose between the 3, and not just go for Fascism because it's the earliest with a higher city limit. Making Fascism require Nationalism and Mass Media moves it toward the other 2 governments.

Although Fascism and Communism are dead-end techs, this can be reflected in their extra "short-term" qualities (martial law, military support etc) over Democracy.

We ought to get ready for the governments thread too

They should come around the same time, though historically democracy was first, then communism, then fascism (but not by much since 1917 for commies and the fasists didnt get power until 1922) Democracy I think should come early and have the higher city limits. So people may bee-line to that but its not going to give them the decisive conquering advantage that fascism gives. Fascism I think works greater later than the othre two because a power on the ropes can use it to take back some land (and thats really what fascism did or italy and Germany at tat time)

[Maquiladora]

Re: Re: DESIGN: Technology Tree

Originally posted by E

We ought to get ready for the governments thread too

Don't tempt me

They should come around the same time, though historically democracy was first, then communism, then fascism (but not by much since 1917 for commies and the fasists didnt get power until 1922) Democracy I think should come early and have the higher city limits. So people may bee-line to that but its not going to give them the decisive conquering advantage that fascism gives. Fascism I think works greater later than the othre two because a power on the ropes can use it to take back some land (and thats really what fascism did or italy and Germany at tat time)

Democracy does come the earliest now. It requires Ages of Reason and Nationalism, and Nationalism requires Printing Press instead of Fascism now, so Democracy comes much earlier.

Communism next because of Banking etc, and Fascism comes last because of Mass Media and all those prerequisites.

If I were to choose I'd go Democracy right off for the city limit and growth, then leave Democracy for Communism for more prod+commerce, and I wouldn't even touch Fascism now, not even for Fascists.

This effectively means everyone should go Democracy or lose a lot of growth and science between researching Communism.

It's going to be hard to balance as it's almost a "no-brainer" to go Democracy. There has to be some negative hit to your empire if you switch to Democracy too early, giving a choice. Perhaps crippling war discontent, aswell as the unit support. This has to offset exactly the benefit of building/capturing (potentially) 15 more cities though.

Then there needs to be a reason to switch to Fascism over Communism. War discontent could decrease even more. Perhaps make Fascist better as it's later.

This was probably better in a government thread.

[LemurMadness]

Re: DESIGN: Technology Tree

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Of course if we say Plasmatica at Plasma Weaponry, we can move Plasma Destroyer to some Plasma naval tech like you say.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
How about calling "Archery" "Composite Bow" instead? Archery implies you haven't already got Ballistics and the Archer.

This still leaves us with the problem (in historical terms) of Horse Riding requiring Ballistics though.

Also what's "Archery"? If it's Ballistics then Gunpowder already requires Ballistics through that branch.

Archery is the advance that enables the Longbowman, in the sketch I've made. Geometry, it's the advance that enables the Catapult and it's appart from Feudalism, they only share Ballistics as background, not only improving the bow design to make the longbow, but the military training these Longbowman had from young ages, so the power of longbows wasn't just the weapon, it was also the wielder that made it awesome

Wikipedia: "Deformed skeletons of archers have been studied, revealing spur like growths on their bones where the over-developed muscles pulled. However, these men did train weekly from a very young age and their lives depended on being able to use such powerful bows (The Age of Chivalry (1963)). There are modern day examples of men who are quite capable of shooting these bows so we know it is possible. Mark Stretton currently holds the world record for shooting a 200 pound (900 N) longbow."

Originally posted by Maquiladora
I thought Gunpowder gave Musketeer and Infantry Tactics Infantryman?

What's wrong with Infantry Tactics just requiring Gunpowder?

I thought giving it that advance as requisite, because of the statement (Wikipedia extract) I gave before it required some sort of military training and discipline and, not making it a dead-end advance.

I still don't know which would be first, but Infantry Tactics should be IMHO for the offensive Skirmisher, as it requires more tactical developments over strategies used in the combat field.

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Fascism, Communism and (Modern) Democracy should come around the same time IMO, so you have to choose between the 3, and not just go for Fascism because it's the earliest with a higher city limit. Making Fascism require Nationalism and Mass Media moves it toward the other 2 governments.

Although Fascism and Communism are dead-end techs, this can be reflected in their extra "short-term" qualities (martial law, military support etc) over Democracy.

I'll answer that in the goverments thread

[Maquiladora]

Re: Re: DESIGN: Technology Tree

Originally posted by LemurMadness

Archery is the advance that enables the Longbowman, in the sketch I've made. Geometry, it's the advance that enables the Catapult and it's appart from Feudalism, they only share Ballistics as background, not only improving the bow design to make the longbow, but the military training these Longbowman had from young ages, so the power of longbows wasn't just the weapon, it was also the wielder that made it awesome

I'm just saying it doesn't sound right that you research Ballistics for Archers, but then need "Archery" for Longbowman. How about "Yeomanry"? like in Ages of Man. Requiring the same Feudalism + Geometry.

I still don't know which would be first, but Infantry Tactics should be IMHO for the offensive Skirmisher, as it requires more tactical developments over strategies used in the combat field.

I was assuming the Infantryman was using a later developed Rifle and so came after the standard musket, which is why i first suggested "Rifling" as the new tech. Although if we're using "Infantry Tactics" then it should give Musketeer. So the Musketeer is given from Infantry Tactics, and the Infantryman stays as the default Gunpowder unit.

[Maquiladora]

http://apolyton.net/ctp/features/poster.shtml

To continue my trip down memory lane i was looking at the CtP1 advances. Some much more logical approaches such as:

Domestication (Agriculture) - !Mounted Archer, @Marketplace (moves M. Archer earlier, to open up Knight with a different but more logical path, see below)

Jurisprudence (Writing) - !Samurai, @Courthouse (well we already moved Samurai to a similar but later path, but here it's different to CtP2 aswell)

Stirrup (Iron-Working, Domestication) - !Knight (this would be "Horse Riding" not "Stirrup". Brings Iron Working even more into the game, also separates another unit from the overcrowded Feudalism advance, leaving Pikemen and Longbowman there)

In CtP1 Pikemen is at Agricultural revolution, but AR comes slightly earlier and doesn't give Advanced Farms in CtP1. See the tile imp thread about Advanced Farms in a while.

Fascism (Electrification, Nationalism) - !Fascist (this would be Electricity obviously. Comes earlier than Mass Media/Nationalism, which is too late IMO, because TV comes with MM and represents something else, certainly after Fascism)

[Ekmek]

I am not opposed at all to implementing CTP1 ideas. AFAIK, CTP1 was more thought out than CTP2

[Maquiladora]

I agree, CtP1 definitely was more thought out, although 2 was released unfinished, so it wasn't entirely deliberate. But it feels like a lot of the differences in 2 are purely for the sake of change, trying to make it look like a sequal, rather than changing only what needed improving.

[Protra3211]

I feel nukes are overpowering.What about making changes so nukes go obsolete in a short spand of time.
A simple text change in the Units file covering a range of techs that cause them to go obsolete.

[Maquiladora]

They're overpowered anyway, but even more when there's no pollution.

I suppose they could produce a lot more pollution to risk destroying your own cities from flooding.

It takes 4, 6, 9 and 14 nukes (from no pollution to max) to trigger the first global warming event (shorter periods for next events) on a small, regular, huge and gigantic map at the moment, which maybe could be reduced. But still they're overpowered in no pollution games.

Nukes kill 75% of the population, maybe if they killed only 25%. The dead tiles are damaging aswell, and 25% pop can be 10 pop or more in the modern era, which is still a lot and kills that city for a while. It should probably cost more to support and possibly build though.

Anything more than that and they become weak. It's not long before you can get Anti-Ballistic Missiles (total defence v nuke) anyway as Nuclear Power is a prerequisite for Global Communications. Then you're only at risk from spy-planted nukes.

[LemurMadness]

I'd say the pollution generated over Nukes is way too much, I mean, how many nuclear detonations the world has experienced in real life without any substantial atmospheric change (Incluiding the tzar bomba) ?

I see the changes you made Maq, but why Electrification for Fascism? Sorry if I don't have enough time to discuss about techs but my time is very very limited now

[Maquiladora]

I don't have much time at the moment either. That about Electrification (Electricity) for Fascism isn't a change, merely a suggestion as I saw it from CtP1, it seemed more accurate than Mass Media.

[LemurMadness]

Well im doing something crazy: im calculating the total science cost for every advance in a chart... and it's giving me some weird results ill post some results when im done.

[Maquiladora]

Good idea Lemur, and it saves me doing it I actually had the same idea, but I was only going to do it for each government to balance them more. Let us know when you're done.