We've radically changed the mechanic, so I've started a new thread here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227747). I'm leaving the originals intact for reference/historical purposes.

This thread is being spun off of this one (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224676) in order to make discussion easier (since that thread really described two different mechanisms).

Mxzs did a great job summarizing the philosophy of this system here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5505581#post5505581).

Last Updated: June 7th, 2007

Gameplay Mechanics: Discovery

Prerequisites/Influencers
Techs can have Prerequisites and Influencers.
Prerequisites must be Adopted before the Tech can be Discovered. If a Prerequisite is Abandoned, dependent Techs receive a Abandoned Prereq modifier.
Influencers do not have to be Adopted or even Discovered, however, doing so will make it more likely to discover and easier to adopt.
Because of the existence of Influencers, Techs will no longer have funnelled prereqs. For example: Guilds (Economics) requires Machinery (Manufacturing) as an Influencer. Since Metal Casting (Manufacturing) is a Prerequisite for Machinery, it is also considered an Influencer for Guilds.
If the Classic Tech Tree is turned on, all Influencers are considered Prerequisites for gameplay purposes.

Discovery of a Tech
As noted below, there are six branches on the Tech Tree. At most points in the game, a Tech is being 'examined' from each branch. The exceptions are when there are no techs remaining in the branch, or all the remaining techs in the branch require an unadopted prerequisite.

The specific tech being examined in a branch is chosen from the pool of all available Techs (that do not have unadopted prerequisites). The likelihood of a specific tech being examined is a factor of age (earlier techs are more likely to be examined) and influencers (techs that require an adopted influencer are more likely to be examined than one in which a influencer is not adopted). The Player does not sees what tech is being examined until he has adopted Scientific Method. If the prereq of an examined tech is abandoned, the examined tech is no longer examined (losing all of its discovery points) and a new tech is chosen from the branch pool.

The Tech being examined is randomly selected from the pool of all available (ie meets the prerequisites) Techs. All techs have the same base chance of being examined, with reductions based on Age (for example, -X% per Age later than the current one ... so in the Ancient Age, you'd have -X% for a Classical Age Tech, -2X% for a Medieval Tech, etc.) and Lack of Known Influencers (formerly Soft Prerequisites) of -Y% per Influencer not known. So without Chemistry, it'd be harder to get Steam Power examined. Being in the Classical Age and not having Chemistry makes it much harder. But presuming you have the prereqs, it's not impossible.

Only one branch receives discovery points per turn. This is necessary to prevent a Civ discovering six techs in the same turn (and then having a huge wait for the next tech) and should do a better job of spacing out Tech Discovery.

The branch receiving the points is based on % chance. The % chance is influenced by two factors: What You Want, and What You Do

What You Want: Minimum of 10% per branch, so you can put max 50% in one. This is the player's choice.

What You Do: Everything you do in the game puts value towards one of the branches. X points per Bank towards Economics. Y points per Spearman towards Manufacturing. Z points per Plantation Worked towards Discovery. And so on. I had originally thought to have a declining value for each of these actions (i.e. build a Bank, get X points that turn, .8X the next turn, .6X the subsequent turn, etc.,), but then I realized that would allow for quick giant shifts in Civilization mentality (after five turns it wouldn't matter that you spent most of the game as a mercantile Civ, you could become a militaristic one). So everything sticks. [Note: Obviously this will require serious playtesting to determine proper values for X, Y, and Z]

Once the game calculates What You Do, then it determines how to apply What You Want as follows:
Let's say you have a perfectly balanced empire and you have 150 points per branch, for 900 points total. The %s you specified are then based off of 900 points. So, let's say you give 50% to Manufacturing and 10% to the rest (Alexander just declared War). So the odds of which branch gets discovery points this turn is:

33% (150 WYD + 450 WYW = 600/1800): Manufacturing
13.33% (150 WYD + 90 WYW = 240/1800): Everything else

So on average, you'd be putting Discovery Points into Manufacturing every 3 turns.

Every Tech has an X number of Discovery points that must be accumulated before it can be 'Discovered'. The more advanced the tech, the more Discovery points required. This will likely be tied into the Age of the Tech (For example, Ancient Techs requires 50 discovery points, Classical requires 100, etc.)

'Discovery points' are based on population (the more people in your empire, the more likely you are to invent something before modifiers). The formula is SUM(Xc/Yc), where Xc is the number of citizens in a city and Yc is the distance of the city from the Capital (how X and Y are generated, i.e. is X equal to the number of the city, is Y equal to tile distance, etc., is unknown at this time. Do not take the equation literally). The distance factor is in the game to prevent large spread-out empires from running away in the Tech Race, and reflects the reality that discoveries at the edge of your empire are unlikely to make their way back to the Capital. [Note: Forbidden Palace and Versailles will be factors as well for determining what Y is in the equation]

Discovery points are modified by the following:

Civilization traits. If you are predisposed to a tech tree branch due to your civilization traits, you receive a bonus X% discovery points when that branch is selected
War. Unless Always War is selected, when you are in War you receive a bonus X% discovery points if the destination branch is one of the Military ones, or a minus X% discovery points if it is not
?


Discovery points are calculated and allotted at the end of the Player's turn. A Discovery occurs at the beginning of the next turn. Because only one branch gets allotted each turn, you can never discover more than one tech (exceptions being Great People/Huts) in the same turn. However, it is feasible that you'll discover a tech a few turns in a row (never more than six, of course -- after which it might be awhile before you discover a new one).

Note: Research has NO EFFECT on Discovery of a Tech.

Once a Tech is discovered ... see the original thread ;)

Tech Tree Branches

This (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/2578/Techs1.jpg) is the Tech Tree (without Prereqs/Influencers) for the first 3 ages.

The following modifications have been made to the Civ 4 Tech Tree:

Philosophy is now an ancient age tech (will have different benefits)
I've eliminated Archery as a tech (Hunting will suffice)
Astronomy has been made a middle age tech (applies only to land Astronomy; there will be a Navigation tech that replaces Astronomy for its current benefits)


There are six branches that make up the tech tree. They are:

Manufacturing
Economics
Discovery
Civilization
Philosophy
Government


The following is a list of the branches and their techs for the first 3 ages

Manufacturing
Mining
Masonry
Bronze Working
Iron Working
Metal Casting
Engineering
Machinery

Economics
The Wheel
Pottery
Writing
Mathematics
Currency
Guilds
Banking

Discovery
Fishing
Hunting
Sailing
Compass
Calendar
Optics
Astronomy

Civilization
Agriculture
Animal Husbandry
Horseback Riding
Alphabet
Construction
Feudalism
Civil Service

Philosophy
Mysticism
Meditation
Philosophy
Literature
Drama
Music
Paper

Government
Polytheism
Monotheism
Priesthood
Code of Laws
Monarchy
Theology
Divine Right


Each Civilization Trait has a predisposition towards one of the six branches. The predisposition causes a Trait Modifier for discovery calculations (see above). Here is the list of Trait dispositions:

Forthcoming(?) -- May drop Trait Modifiers for Discovery Calculations, still contemplating.

The descriptions above are based on an idea where the Discovery of Techs can be deliberately influenced by the Player (i.e. they can allot Discovery % however they feel within the limits proscribed). What I believe we should do is change it so that the Discovery mechanism is based on what the player does, not what he decides. Ideally, this would cause a feedback loop of Tech -> Action -> Tech (that is, I build Spears, that encourages the discovery of military techs, I can build Pikes or I build Markets, that encourages the discovery of Banking, I then can build Banks)

However, we need to make sure it doesn't imbalance the game in a specific direction. My next post will be a rewrite of the above with an implicit mechanism ... but give me a few hours, ok?

Reserved for New Mechanism Proposal

I've gone ahead and modified the first post.

Reserved ...

One thing to make clear before we get started: how this looks to the Player.

With Tech Discovery in this system, the player can try to influence (explicitly -- as it is defined now -- or implicitly -- as I hope to change it) what Tech pops next. However, they have no firm control over it. All the Player sees is that every so often an advisor pops up saying:

"Sire, we have received word that someone has discovered Iron Working!"

Everything else will occur hidden from the player. They won't know what Techs may be about to be discovered. They can't beeline to a specific tech. They can't even guarantee that the next Tech they get is a Military one. So we're discussing an internal mechanism here.

A second thing to make clear: this system is going to be designed to be used either with the Adoption-Embrace-Abandonment system I designed in the original thread or it should be usable with the current tech tree with a minimum of changes (the biggest being translating Discovery Points to Lightbulbs). So keep that in mind.

I think that if the branches are carved up nicely, that still gives the player the main interesting choices. "I'm not really sure if I'm gonna develop stealth or robotics next, but I do know that I've invested a lot of research into the military branch."

For all the element of chance involved in this new system, you don't want to lose the element of choice: that's the most popular part of the current tech tree.

I think that if the branches are carved up nicely, that still gives the player the main interesting choices. "I'm not really sure if I'm gonna develop stealth or robotics next, but I do know that I've invested a lot of research into the military branch."

For all the element of chance involved in this new system, you don't want to lose the element of choice: that's the most popular part of the current tech tree.

What's the best way of adding choice though? Should the player be able to make some decisions on which branch receives discovery points? Maybe not the full 40% is controlled by the system? Maybe 75% is determined by calculation (7% to each branch and 33% divvied up based on game decisions) and 25% by the player?

Let me work on some real-game examples, that should help the discussion.

To me, the discovery points would be randomly distributed between all techs and all branches. "Earlier" techs on the branch would get more points than "later" techs on the branch.

The players would no longer get to chose a technology. But the player would have a choice over branches. "Let's put 50% into military, and 10% into everything else". Whatever allocation they want -- maybe within certain limits to prevent oddities.

Besides that, certain behaviors would encourage certain branches: war would distribute 10% more tech to military branches (and whether this is a simple increase, or it's a zero sum game that subtracts from the other branches is something reasonable people can disagree on). Certain buildings would give you more discovery points to allocate. "Barracks: +1 lightbulb to military". "Library: +5 lightbulbs (spread across all branches)". Certain technologies, too: "Philosophy: +5% more lightbulbs (spread across all branches).

Some technologies would also have bonuses. "Domestication: 20% cheaper with cows/sheep/horses". Again, to allow players to not just direct their research towards a technology... but their entire empire. That's so damn cool that it might actually tempt a player away from the discrete choices of the classic tech tree.

Once an individual technology reaches a certain threshold, it is discovered. Adoption, of course, is a whole other issue.

Besides that, certain behaviors would encourage certain branches: war would distribute 10% more tech to military branches (and whether this is a simple increase, or it's a zero sum game that subtracts from the other branches is something reasonable people can disagree on). Certain buildings would give you more discovery points to allocate. "Barracks: +1 lightbulb to military". "Library: +5 lightbulbs (spread across all branches)". Certain technologies, too: "Philosophy: +5% more lightbulbs (spread across all branches).

Some technologies would also have bonuses. "Domestication: 20% cheaper with cows/sheep/horses". Again, to allow players to not just direct their research towards a technology... but their entire empire. That's so damn cool that it might actually tempt a player away from the discrete choices of the classic tech tree.

Perfect! There are a lot individual items that could be keyed to research probabilities. They could be keyed in lots of different ways. Not just the presence of cattle, but the presence of pastures; not just the presence of pastures, but the number of them.

Most of these percentages should probably be aimed at the general knowledge branches, e.g., the presence of a Mine adds a bonus to the Science/Practical branch. But some could be keyed to individual techs. Possession of both a pasture and a farm, for instance, could increase the chance that Gunpowder is the tech that "pops."

I am passionately in love with the idea of a feedback loop, that the player's own choices mold his civilization in a certain direction rather than being hardwired in. In the limit, I'd love to see these choices gradually give the player the "civilization abilities" instead of having them set at the start. It's true that some civilizations have certain insistences, but "civilization ability" is a kludge, I've always thought.

Ok, spent some time thinking about it last night. Here's what I'm thinking:

Six Branches

Each Branch has one Tech being 'examined' at all times (presuming there are techs available to examine). I do not like the idea of distributing points among all the available Techs because then it takes a LOT longer for a Tech to be discovered (and with a sharp reduction in prerequisites, there's a lot more techs to distribute those points among)

The Tech being examined is randomly selected from the pool of all available (ie meets the prerequisites) Techs. All techs have the same base chance of being examined, with reductions based on Age (for example, -X% per Age later than the current one ... so in the Ancient Age, you'd have -X% for a Classical Age Tech, -2X% for a Medieval Tech, etc.) and Lack of Known Influencers (formerly Soft Prerequisites) of -Y% per Influencer not known. So without Chemistry, it'd be harder to get Steam Power examined. Being in the Classical Age and not having Chemistry makes it much harder. But presuming you have the prereqs, it's not impossible.

Only one branch receives discovery points per turn. This is necessary to prevent a Civ discovering six techs in the same turn (and then having a huge wait for the next tech) and should do a better job of spacing out Tech Discovery.

The branch receiving the points is based on % chance. The % chance is influenced by two factors: What You Want, and What You Do

What You Want: Minimum of 10% per branch, so you can put max 50% in one. This is the player's choice.

What You Do: Everything you do in the game puts value towards one of the branches. X points per Bank towards Philosophy/Theoretical. Y points per Musket towards Military/Defensive. Z points per Plantation Worked towards Science/Practical. And so on. I had originally thought to have a declining value for each of these actions (i.e. build a Bank, get X points that turn, .8X the next turn, .6X the subsequent turn, etc.,), but then I realized that would allow for quick giant shifts in Civilization mentality (after five turns it wouldn't matter that you spent most of the game as a mercantile Civ, you could become a militaristic one). So everything sticks. [Note: Obviously this will require serious playtesting to determine proper values for X, Y, and Z]

Once the game calculates What You Do, then it determines how to apply What You Want as follows:
Let's say you have a perfectly balanced empire and you have 150 points per branch, for 900 points total. The %s you specified are then based off of 900 points. So, let's say you give 50% to Military/Offensive and 10% to the rest (Alexander just declared War). So the odds of which branch gets discovery points this turn is:

33% (150 WYD + 450 WYW = 600/1800): Military/Offensive
13.33% (150 WYD + 90 WYW = 240/1800): Everything else

So on average, you'd be putting Discovery Points into Military/Offensive every 3 turns.

So keeping the same Discovery Point generation/bonuses from the original post ... I think we have a system. Thoughts?

Ok, I've started working on the Techs, and I've come to a startling (for me, anyhow) conclustion: 2 Military branches doesn't work. There aren't enough techs to justify them -- too many of the Units come with techs that aren't military (especially in the earlier ages). So I'm going to have to revamp the branches...but more importantly, I think I'm going to have to kill the Trait Association, but we'll see.

I hope to have the first 3 ages (42 techs, iirc) mapped this weekend.

Don't worry too much about linking the branches to traits or great people. In fact, don't worry too much about the number of branches. That's icing on the cake. The really important thing is some variety of branches, so players can choose a focus (since you've taken away their ability to choose a tech). But it's most important to find a sensible way to break down the history of ideas/technology into a few equal parts, in a way that makes sense for gameplay.

Tech Tree Layout -- Without Prereqs (http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/2578/Techs1.jpg)

Alright, here's the first attempt. I have ended up grouping the first 3 ages into 6 branches called:

Manufacturing
Economics
Discovery
Civilization
Philosophy
Government


The names aren't perfect, but they're the best I could come up with at 11:45 at night.

I have made 3 changes to the Civ 4 Tech Tree:

Philosophy is now an ancient age tech
I've eliminated Archery as a tech (Hunting will suffice)
Astronomy has been made a middle age tech


This is just a start, obviously. Next step is to determine the prereqs and influencers for each tech.

AS posted in the before thread, I really like the idea.
To the above 6 branches - where is the military? Is that manu., mainly?
Also, since we're already beating up the techtree, you might solve the problem about the lack of tech by simply adding more. I mean, there could be smaller steps than archer -> -> -> longbowman.
something like this archer -> Yeoman archer -> Longbow militia -> Longbowman would make alot of sense.

There really aren't many Techs that can be considered dedicated to Military. Now, if this system were used for Civ 5, the Tech Tree could easily be modified in order to do so. However, I kind of like the fact that military isn't easy to pin down. It makes it so much harder for a player (or an AI even) to put their all their effort into military techs in the hope of overwhelming the world early.

If you had to call a thread 'Military', Manufacturing is probably closest. This actually ties in nicely with 19th Century Germany (new World Wonder: Krupp Works, all Artillery get +10% bombard)

I like the change. The "Military" branch was leaving me uneasy; it seemed like an invitation to those who like to make the dash to Military Tradition.

^ Agree. Should be harder to roll over the world in a bloodbath al through the game - and playing peaceful should be a little more effective.

Great work on this new prototype of the tech tree. I immediately like the organization. Obviously, reasonable people could disagree on the names of the branches, or where a tech or two should lie. But that's not the important part of this exercise. (Although, as a side note, it's probably best not to have a "Military" branch -- since that would concentrate too much power on one part of the tree.)

What we get from this is a few things.

Players have given up the ability to choose technologies. But they *can* focus on a branch.
We have more evidence that the discovery mechanic of the game can be changed without making a vastly larger tech tree

We're left with a few questions, though, which should be moderately challenging -- not impossible:

Is it possible to make sensible and clean pre-requisites (soft/hard) for each tech, especially since the branches have been pulled apart?
Does this have the intended payoff, with the potential for dark ages, and discovery influenced by environment and playstyle?

I'm not sure I'm a big fan of this idea.

One of the key elements of the tech tree in Civ has always been choice. You are completely in charge of what goes on. If you want Granaries you research Pottery. Don't care so much, would rather go to war with Swordsmen? Go for Iron Working.

You could argue "well, players can still choose what branch to emphasize!" I don't feel that's enough control. I want Swordsmen, not a slow march up the Military Branch. That's why it's Civ and not Europa Universalis. Both good games, but each has a different focus.

It's also more complex and I'm not sure what that adds. Say you're researching 6 techs instead of 1. Why is that better? Sounds like a proposal I've seen a lot before where people want to be able to build more than one thing at a time in a city. Doesn't seem to add anything besides more management overhead. Even with your proposed redesign to only add points to one branch... if there are 20 mysterious factors influencing it why is that better than if I can just pick what I want? You're removing even more choice from players by eliminating Research and forcing all "beakers" to come through Discovery Points, which players have no control over.

I guess my real question is: what does this actually add to the Civilization experience that was lacking before? It seems to remove a fair bit that was entertaining... I'm not sure what that's being replaced with.

Some people may enjoy a system where the way technology is chosen and acquired is more nebulous. But I don't think this is the sort of thing that should be forced on everyone.

I think that's a very valid question Vael. Although I think it might be premature as these are things still being worked out by the OP and the other participants.

Still, there's probably a few benefits:

1) Realism. I always say realism isn't enough, though. And admittedly, we've limited player choice in the name of realism. There has to be more to it than this.

2) You build expertise in what you do. Since technology and discovery is a bit more random, you can have that randomness depend on what's actually going on in the game. The guy with the larger population is the one who triggers new discoveries in food and health. The guy fighting more wars is the guy with cool swords, not the guy building more libraries. This, to me, sounds like the most fun possibility: you are rewarded for specializing, and discovery comes from something you do well. It's like you earned it.

3) More sensible tech trading. As it stands now, it's a little bizarre that you can "teach" someone the secret of Democracy. It's not really a complicated concept. And yet, Democracy can't just sprout up anywhere. On the other hand, it makes sense you can teach somebody how to master Rifling or Plastics. Although the system isn't there yet, I ultimately think the distinction between branches, and the distinction between idea/application or discovery/adoption will make tech trading more intuitive.

4) More flexible history. In real life, Leonardo may have discovered some interesting principles of Physics or Flight early. China had gunpowder in 300 AD, with no guns for a while after. Evidence has recently revealed that the Olmecs had a lodestone compass in 1000 BC! When all is said and done, the hope is that this system might allow these kinds of surprises to occur -- as well as their disappearance.

5) Lost Discoveries and Dark Ages. Again, a work in progress. We wouldn't want this happening often. Maybe not even every game. But the distinction between discovering a technology and adopting a technology plays in here. If a technology is not fully embraced, it may be forgotten: which may be encouraged by civic conditions, economic constraints, or foreign invasion.

It's still early. I'm not necessarily even saying I believe the idea is a must for Civilization 5. But that's the fun of a brainstorm. You see where it leads.

I see and agree with both Vael and Epic's points - I'm looking foward to a lot of exciting read this friday when I get back :)

@Vael: I understand your concern. That is why I'm modeling the system strictly around a Tech Tree (something I've taken flak from). In the other thread I've created (which spawned this thread), I've included a Gameplay Option called Classic Tech Tree; in other words, players will NOT be forced to use this system.

A note on Prereqs/Influencers:

One must be very careful. At first I wasn't going to have Mining be a Prereq or Influencer for Bronze Working, in other words, you'd have the same chance of landing Mining as you would Bronze Working. How much would that suck? Bronze Working without being able to use the Copper? Oy!

You can see why Firaxis likes the rigid tech tree ...

NOTE: Because I'm modeling things off of the Civ 4 Tech Tree, you will see more prereqs/influencers then you would see if the Tech Tree was rebalanced for the system. Keep that in mind.

Ok, I'm probably about 75% done with modelling the Prereqs/Influencers. Right now my hardest part is legibility -- Visio doesn't do arrow as well as I'd like. So it may take me longer to do it in Paint Shop Pro, but I'd thought I'd post some of the "highlights" so far:

I've come up with 10 prereqs so far. That's it. TEN. Now that I think about it, I might as well do the tree Civ 4-style, with an embedded Pic of Prereqs and arrows for the influencers, since there are so few prereqs
Mathematics has no prereqs or influencers (most advanced tech with that designation)
One thing you'll see is that Compass is not an influencer for Astronomy; that's because the "new" Tech Tree has Navigation where Astronomy used to be; the Astronomy in this Tech Tree is land-based Astronomy
Hunting & Pottery have no connections to any other Techs
So far my favorite change is that Agriculture is a Prereq for Calendar and Feudalism, something that is sorely lacking in the current game

Some of the things here sound good... primarily more general researching of techs... instead of picking a specific tech, you pick a category.

I like this. People think it stinks because you can't go for what you want directly, but those are probably the same people who run through the same formulaic series of techs to produce the swiftest victory.

Seems to me a lot of people want that to change... they don't want a no-brainer direct course to winning the game. I don't see any other way to do it except by making research based on categories rather than specific techs... So from a gameplay perspective, it's better because it forces the player to maybe be slightly more creative in their decision-making, and respond to what they've gotten even if its not exactly what they wanted.

I like the idea of research points being accumulated from different things for different kinds of techs... I mean, it doesn't make sense that an Observatory is going to get me to the discovery of Steam Power any faster, yet that's exactly how it works now... the Observatory gives the research bonus regardless of what's being researched.

But truthfully, I'm not bothered with the number of prerequisites for techs or tech tree as a whole now. I like it. Aside from the changes from specific tech selection and research points to different tech categories, I can't imagine why you'd want to go and make what seems to me to be an extremely complicated system like what has been proposed...

I like this. People think it stinks because you can't go for what you want directly, but those are probably the same people who run through the same formulaic series of techs to produce the swiftest victory.
No, it stinks because Civ is a strategy game, not a simulation. If there's a problem with the game having too few worthwhile strategies then that's a flaw with the balance, not the system.

Seems to me a lot of people want that to change... they don't want a no-brainer direct course to winning the game. I don't see any other way to do it except by making research based on categories rather than specific techs... So from a gameplay perspective, it's better because it forces the player to maybe be slightly more creative in their decision-making, and respond to what they've gotten even if its not exactly what they wanted.
Dulling the choices in the game by taking away the player's ability to control what happens isn't the right way to make the game more strategic. Chess isn't made a superior game by have a bystander occasionally moving your pieces randomly, requiring you to be more "creative" in your decision-making. I don't see why Civ would be any different.

One of Civ's greatest strengths is that so much of the game mechanics are transparent - predictable - plannable. Let the player's decisions be the cause of his fate, not a black box of formulas and algorithms. If the game balance is wrong then fix it. Don't restrict the player's choices because you fear their outcome.

Well, then I guess we should also remove resources from the game, start every single civ on identical pieces of land, remove goody huts, have the map completely visible from the beginning, and remove any randomness from combat... chance is a factor in the game.

And no matter how you try to expand the strategies and add new features, somebody's going to find out that it's 0.001% easier to do it just this particular way.. and if you adjust it, then it will be 0.001% easier to do it another way and they will do it that way.

If it had always been this way... if research had always been based on investing heavily in a particular research direction but without a specific set of rewards promised from the outset, and someone had come along and demanded that the veil be pulled away and those exact set of rewards be made the precise target of our energies, everyone would be arguing that it would be too easy... that if you could just pick and choose like a salad bar exactly what you wanted and discard the negatives that you would have what you already have... a formulaic strategy for victory.

Your chess example is incorrect because no one is coming along and moving your pieces here... your status quo has not been disrupted. Your research direction has not been spontaneously switched for no reason at all, and indeed choice is still available to you, but the rewards of your choices are not promised. Strategy is not about knowing exactly what lies ahead because it has been neatly laid out for you.

2) You build expertise in what you do. Since technology and discovery is a bit more random, you can have that randomness depend on what's actually going on in the game. The guy with the larger population is the one who triggers new discoveries in food and health. The guy fighting more wars is the guy with cool swords, not the guy building more libraries. This, to me, sounds like the most fun possibility: you are rewarded for specializing, and discovery comes from something you do well. It's like you earned it.

You've got to be very careful going down this slippery slope though. What if someone starts a war in 4000BC and doesn't ever end his warlike ways? Does that propel him so far up the military aspect of the game that he's unstoppable. That's a very real possibility with these sort of feedback loops, and you must design/plan for it.

4) More flexible history. In real life, Leonardo may have discovered some interesting principles of Physics or Flight early. China had gunpowder in 300 AD, with no guns for a while after. Evidence has recently revealed that the Olmecs had a lodestone compass in 1000 BC! When all is said and done, the hope is that this system might allow these kinds of surprises to occur -- as well as their disappearance.

Just because China had gunpowder, Egyptians had batteries and the Olmecs had the compass doesn't mean that the technology was widespread, and that's what the techs in Civ represent - widespread use of a technology.

You've got to be very careful going down this slippery slope though. What if someone starts a war in 4000BC and doesn't ever end his warlike ways? Does that propel him so far up the military aspect of the game that he's unstoppable. That's a very real possibility with these sort of feedback loops, and you must design/plan for it.


Well, we've seemed to have avoided that by not having a Military Branch! Now, the Manufacturing Branch is going to see a lot of feedback, but a lot of units aren't on the Branch.


Just because China had gunpowder, Egyptians had batteries and the Olmecs had the compass doesn't mean that the technology was widespread, and that's what the techs in Civ represent - widespread use of a technology.

Which is why I created the Adoption system :mischief:

Related to Vael's observations: Unhappy thoughts about the Research model (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224676).

You've got to be very careful going down this slippery slope though. What if someone starts a war in 4000BC and doesn't ever end his warlike ways? Does that propel him so far up the military aspect of the game that he's unstoppable. That's a very real possibility with these sort of feedback loops, and you must design/plan for it.


Wanted to bring something else up: the strength of Civ 4's gameplay design. If you tried something similar in the current game, you'd run into a brickwall of either Maintenance Costs (if you were keeping the cities) or Unit Costs (if you were going for conquest). Typically what the player learns is once he hits that brickwall, to make peace, rest his troops and beeline to Currency or Code of Laws (depending on what he needs more).

Ok, now look at the Discovery System. Since the player has no control over the tech that pops, he can't beeline to Currency or Code of Laws. He could place emphasis on the respective branches, but there's no guarantee. In other words, the player has to stop before he hits the brick wall. Instead of encouraging the player down a specific branch, the feedback mechanism does the opposite: the player must make decisions that prevent him from focusing in one area otherwise, quite simply, he'll lose the game. He may have Engineering before all the AIs have Metal Casting, but the AI will be able to expand further and faster because they have Currency and Code of Laws.

Suggestion Box Entry:

Scientific Method gives you the ability to see what Techs are being examined in each Branch.

Computers (or another Modern Age Tech) gives you the ability to choose what Techs are being examined. This would eliminate the need for "Modern Age Tech Tree" option, and make sense due to the historical reality that in the Modern Age it is easier to direct research.

Thoughts?

The feedback loop problem is a legitimate concern. One player focuses on some military innovations, then starts using them a lot, which encourages more military innovations, which lets them use them even more... that's the feedback loop. But I'm not worried about this loop getting too strong. Part of it is designing a tech tree where there isn't a clear military branch (for example, swordmen are on the metals branch, but catapults come from construction). Another part of it is other balancing aspects of the game, like maintenance and unhappiness, which naturally limit an explosion of power.

But even more important is what ChrTh described as the "brick wall". I think this tech model has a natural limit on the feedback loop. This is just a hypothetical, but let's say someone focuses on educational and philosophical types of technologies. They're trying to add to that feedback loop by staying peaceful, and running democratic war-hating civics. The brick wall is they now have no military, and their civilization has relatively little desire to innovate in military. They probably should have started pumping their brakes a little sooner, and tried to re-orient their society. But now they just got conquered by the militaristic Romans.

As for the special bonuses from certain techs, ChrTh... those are neat ideas and come at quite opportune times in the game. That's icing on the cake, though.

As a side note, making something an option adds a new problem: do you teach the AI to play with it on or off? Do you balance the strength of warfare and diplomacy with it on or off? You can't do both.

Obviously, leave the option for people who are going to be incredibly fed up. But you can't please everybody. Do your best, obviously. But it's important to note that Soren's presentation from 2004 didn't think of Civ 2-->3-->4 as growing the audience of the franchise. He looked at it as finding a "new" audience, just with a significant overlap with the "old" audience. That means you will lose some fans along the way. The hope, though, is that you gain more.

Okay, I thought hard. And what it adds is the element of mystery and suspense. What will I discover next?Now we can argue whether or not that is something people actually want. But, it does add something that wasn't there before, in the technology aspect anyway. This is sort of like the exploration period at the begining of the game. You don't have a choice as to what you find when you enter the fog. You don't know if a minor tribe will have something good or bad when you enter.'

I am not sure if I agree with the idea or not. But, the above does answer your question.

I'm not sure I'm a big fan of this idea.
I guess my real question is: what does this actually add to the Civilization experience that was lacking before? It seems to remove a fair bit that was entertaining... I'm not sure what that's being replaced with.

As you may recall I was not originally a fan of this new technology mechanic. However, I now found myself liking this mechanic. I will go to the other thread to read about the other mechanic now and comment.

I think that's a very valid question Vael. Although I think it might be premature as these are things still being worked out by the OP and the other participants.

Still, there's probably a few benefits:

1) Realism. I always say realism isn't enough, though. And admittedly, we've limited player choice in the name of realism. There has to be more to it than this.

2) You build expertise in what you do. Since technology and discovery is a bit more random, you can have that randomness depend on what's actually going on in the game. The guy with the larger population is the one who triggers new discoveries in food and health. The guy fighting more wars is the guy with cool swords, not the guy building more libraries. This, to me, sounds like the most fun possibility: you are rewarded for specializing, and discovery comes from something you do well. It's like you earned it.

3) More sensible tech trading. As it stands now, it's a little bizarre that you can "teach" someone the secret of Democracy. It's not really a complicated concept. And yet, Democracy can't just sprout up anywhere. On the other hand, it makes sense you can teach somebody how to master Rifling or Plastics. Although the system isn't there yet, I ultimately think the distinction between branches, and the distinction between idea/application or discovery/adoption will make tech trading more intuitive.

4) More flexible history. In real life, Leonardo may have discovered some interesting principles of Physics or Flight early. China had gunpowder in 300 AD, with no guns for a while after. Evidence has recently revealed that the Olmecs had a lodestone compass in 1000 BC! When all is said and done, the hope is that this system might allow these kinds of surprises to occur -- as well as their disappearance.

5) Lost Discoveries and Dark Ages. Again, a work in progress. We wouldn't want this happening often. Maybe not even every game. But the distinction between discovering a technology and adopting a technology plays in here. If a technology is not fully embraced, it may be forgotten: which may be encouraged by civic conditions, economic constraints, or foreign invasion.

It's still early. I'm not necessarily even saying I believe the idea is a must for Civilization 5. But that's the fun of a brainstorm. You see where it leads.

Ok, I've updated the first two posts. Still need to redesign the Tech Tree (I think I have all the Prereqs/Influencers mapped, just need to make it legible) ... I'm also going to tackle dh_epic's "what about the AI?" question some point soon.

Assuming it doesn't involve path finding, the AI is safe if you can describe what choices the user makes. I imagine research would be a lot like juggling: you randomly get new objects thrown at you, which you have to juggle. Unless you keep increasing your research capacity, you have to make difficult choices: should I abandon this? should I keep it on bare life support? should I act on it full speed ahead? Or should I give it a normal amount of research? That sounds manageable to type it out here, and so it sounds manageable for the AI too.

while dark ages are semi rare tech lose tends to be rampant in monopolistic type situations, it is really quite unknown within the past 100 years how much has actully been lost but i can easly say its alot.

Vael, you said a lot of what I would've said, thus ensuring that it would be said and saving me from saying it and being able to go on to saying other stuff. Thank you.

Okay, consider the following. I research animal husbandry. Then I don't build any pastures. Or research writing and don't do libraries or go for a dependant tech like alphabet. Or research chemistry and then don't build grenadiers. Isn't this already essentially not adopting/embracing a technology? If I discover currency and then never build markets, or horseback riding and never build any mounted units, isn't this abandoning the technology. If I research technologies with a religious bent and build lots of religious buildings and found religions, isn't this already choosing a slant for my civilization? It's more helpful for me to research further religion related techs. I don't need cathedrals if I don't have a religion or temples in the first place. If I focus on military, I have a core of elite troops which I can upgrade and use in future wars and I have a bunch of buildings in place to facilitate military action. Isn't this already having a military slant? I'm feeling like you're trying to add stuff that is already in the game, only doing it in a more complex and confusing way.

Anyway, I think it would be good to examine how earlier games did things. It turns out that earlier Sid Meier games contained a lot of the things you are trying to do. If I remember correctly Civ 2, (and 1 also?) and Alpha Centauri gave you a random subset of the presently researchable technologies and allowed you to pick one. Alpha Centauri also had a game option that allowed you to pick one or more areas of research to focus on: explore, discover, build, or conquer. Each technology had points in one or more areas. If the area or areas you've picked match with some of that technology's focus, so if you've selected 'discover', you'd be likely to get 'planetary networks', an information technology, while if you'd checked 'explore' and 'conquer', you'd be likely to get 'Doctrine: Air Power'. For imposing randomness these are both very workable systems and I'd urge you to simply adopt one of these simple, straightforward systems if you really want randomness. It would be trivial to make a mod that tacked either one of these on to the existing system. The technologies already have flavors for AI research choice and Great Leader lightbulbing, so you might not even have to muck around with the actual technology tree at all.

I would note however that Firaxis decided not to use either of these systems for Civ4. I think I can guess as to why. First of all, even though there is randomness, the player is still able to know the tech tree and can game the system to force it where they want to go. It's just that they don't know exactly when they will get there. This is exactly what I did with Alpha Centauri. Even with just tech flavors, I knew what options were potentially available and were prerequisites to which other options, so I might choose 'build' and 'explore' to get biogenetics and social psych, switch to 'discover', which could get me 'information networks' and 'planetary networks', or even 'secrets of the human brain', which requires both biogenetics and social psych. Then I might switch to pure 'explore' in the hopes of getting 'Centauri Empathy', which has a prerequisite of 'secrets of the human brain' and so on. There is also the problem that you might sometimes need a technology and just not be able to get it for a while. This could severely stunt your early growth, if the needed tech is economic, or get you totally wiped out if you can't get the military tech you need. It's basically making the whole game hinge on one die roll, which is what they were trying to get away from by balancing starting position.

Master of Orion I also used a very interesting technology system. Here's how it worked. Technology was broken up into categories, 'Weapons', 'Planetology', 'Construction', and so on, sort of like you are trying to do. Each category had 50 technology levels, although not all levels would have an actual technology. For each game, some, but not all of the technologies in a category were available to each race. You had the capability to research any technology that was below your current technology level in that field. Or if there weren't any, you could only research the lowest item on the list. Your actual technology level in a field was 80% of your highest technology + 1 for each additional technology in that field. So, you have 5 weapons technolgies, the highest being 10, you have (80% * 10) + 4 = level 12. In this particular game, this worked out spectacularly well, because every game gave you different technologies. If you didn't get a particular technology, then you would need to steal or trade for it. This meant that you had a different arsenal every game and would have to design different ships and use different strategies. Your enemies also had a random grab bag of technology, so they too had many different options.

The other aspect of the technology system was the sliders. You could focus on any category to whatever degree you desired, or totally ignore it. Depending on how many research points you had accumulated and how much you were spending, you got additional 'interest', the result of which it was more cost effective to have a low and gradually increasing amount of research, rather than a huge amount of spending all at once. When you reached the necessary amount, you didn't get the technology, you got a 1% chance per turn of getting that technology. Putting additional research points into that technology allowed you to keep getting that chance and increase it based on how many more you spend, so it could eventually go up to 100% if you spend enough. This gives an interesting choice of throwing a lot of points in hopes of getting it faster, or only spending a few and it eventually shows up, even with just a 1% a turn. The overall effect of this is to make fast research less efficient than slow. Of course, this was too much micromanagement for Civ, but as half the game was about sliders anyway, it fit right in.

We've radically changed the mechanic, so I've started a new thread here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227747). I'm leaving the originals intact for reference/historical purposes.