Introduction

Well, after much discussion and playtesting here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=225053) and especially here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=224676), we're at a new point with re-imagining the current Tech Tree.

The main elements we are looking to retain from the prior threads are

Less rigid Tech Tree
Discovery/Mastery levels for the Techs
Player decisions influence Tech advancement


Many of the other original ideas have been discarded due to issues uncovered during playtesting. So the goal of this thread is to create a Tech Tree alternative covering these three points. This is done as follows:

Less Rigid Tech Tree
By eliminating many of the prereqs for Techs, we can open up more gameplay options for the player.

Discovery/Mastery levels for the Techs
To offset the possibility of constant beelining to specific techs due to the less rigid tech tree, each Tech has two levels: Discovery and Mastery. The full advantages of a Tech is not gained until it has been mastered, however, Discovery provides benefits and it should be possible to climb the Tech Tree and/or win the game without Mastery of any Techs.

Player decisions influence Tech advancement
If you build and work Mines, it should make mastering Mining easier. If you build a lot of Banks, it should make mastering Banking easier. And so forth. Note that this will be the area of the biggest discussion, I reckon, because I'm not sure how this will be implemented.

The Base System

Discovery in the new system will proceed as it does now; you pick a Tech and apply :science: to it until it is Discovered.

Since prereqs will be reduced where possible, they are being replaced by what are called Influencers. These are Techs that are not required to research a Tech, but previously Discovering them makes it easier to do so by lowering the amount of :science: required.


Bronze Working is an Influencer for Iron Working. If you research Iron Working first, it may take 30 turns combined for you to research Iron Working and then later Bronze Working. If you follow the normal path, though, and go for Bronze Working first and then Iron Working, it may only take you 25 turns combined to research. Therefore, while the ability to research Iron Working ahead of Bronze Working is available, it may be more economical to go for Bronze Working first. A reason to go for Iron Working first may be if you're playing Rome, and you are placing a premium on finding and settling Iron.


Discovery versus Mastery

The goal is to provide cumulative benefits in the Discovery/Mastery system. For example, Discovery of Agriculture allows you to build farmers, while Mastery gives you +1 :food: for a farm. Discovery of Archery allows you to build Archer units, while Mastery of Archery gives all Archer units built after mastery Woodsman 1. Discovery of Writing allows you to build Libraries, and then Mastery of Writing gives your Libraries +5% :science:. And so on.

Note that the benefits don't need to be directly related. Another way it could be used is as follows: Macemen no longer require Civil Service and Machinery; instead, they require the Discovery of Civil Service and Mastery of Bronze Working or Iron Working.

What Goes Without Saying, but I'll Say It Anyway

Unlike the previous iteration of a new Tech Tree Mechanic, this system does not allow easy insertion into the current game. The Techs will have to be reworked and rebalanced.

How Mastery Occurs

This is the big question, and one I would like the most input on (even above possible suggestions for Discovery/Mastery splits). Here are some of the ideas I've bandied about:


Mastery is based solely on what you do as a player. The more Archers you build, the more likely you are to Master Archery.
:science: can be applied to Mastery
The Tech Tree can be divided into branches, and Mastery is a branch phenomenon. For example, the more Economics actions you take (building roads and working cottages, building Markets, etc), the more likely you are to Master an Economic Tech you have Discovered (% chance based on age of Tech)
Some combination of the above


All suggestions welcome, and encouraged!

One thing that may be a carryover artifact: "less rigid tech tree". How does the discovery/mastery mechanic allow a less rigid tech tree?

Wodan

One thing that may be a carryover artifact: "less rigid tech tree". How does the discovery/mastery mechanic allow a less rigid tech tree?

Wodan

Because Discovery doesn't provide all the benefits of the Tech as it does now. Obviously the new effects are TBD, but something like Tech Trading might only be opened up by Mastery of Alphabet, so that the strategy doesn't become "Get Alphabet as soon as possible so you can trade for all the other Techs you're passing by".

Maybe mastery should be somewhat random but be influnced by what you do. The more you would use the discovery benefits the more likely to master the tech. There would be a base chance each turn that each of your techs become mastered, say 5%. The player could increrase the chance of a tech being mastered by utilizing the benefits that discovery of the tech gave.

For example, you discover mining. Intialy the chance that you would master the tech would be very low. However, the more mines you build, the more likely that the tech will be mastered each turn.

I think this system would be pretty easy to use and not creat as much micromanagement as splitting the :science: between discovery and mastery. Also it would still make what you do influnce what tech you master.

Because Discovery doesn't provide all the benefits of the Tech as it does now. Obviously the new effects are TBD, but something like Tech Trading might only be opened up by Mastery of Alphabet, so that the strategy doesn't become "Get Alphabet as soon as possible so you can trade for all the other Techs you're passing by".
To me, a "less rigid tech tree" means I can get Monarchy without having gone the religious path, or that I can get Cavalry without having Music.

You're talking about strategic choices... if a player wants to do X, then he has to jump through whatever hoops you put to get to X. You use the example of "tech trading", and you say it will now be in Mastery... fine, that means the player has to get mastery. It's no different from before: the game dictates what he has to do to get the specific benefit he is looking for.

To me what would allow a "less rigid tech tree" is if we break the tree apart into disciplines (military, religion, commerce, whatever), and we strip out half of the current hard requirements. No more Music to get Military, no more religion to get Monarchy, etc. We might also allow a lot more "soft" prereqs, using OR requirements.

Since your new proposal doesn't have the tech tree split into disciplines (like before), then it seems to me we lose this benefit. I'm not saying that's bad, just pointing out that it's no longer a strength of the new plan. (The new plan has other strengths, just not "less rigid tech tree".)

Wodan

Why do we need to put Techs into branches, unless there's a gameplay reason? Why not just strip out the prereqs for the most part? That's what I've done in the Visio document that someday I'll format to post (:rolleyes:). There are only 10 prereqs in the first 3 ages. Is that too many?

EDIT: Wodan, I'm not sure I understand your objection. You can research Monarchy without the religions, or Cavalry without Music. It's just that we'd make sure an immediate selection of Monarchy or Cavalry (there has to be prereqs for Cavalry, but you get my meaning) doesn't overpower the game. Discovering Monarchy gives you Hereditary Rule. Is it worth waiting the 70 turns it takes to research Monarchy from 4000 BC just for Hereditary Rule? That's a decision the player needs to make. That's all I'm saying. We just have to make sure that Tech X isn't always the first Tech picked.

Like I said, I think there are a number of interesting ways we can accomplish the mastery system.

The real problem, to me, is coming up with a manageable way to divide every technology into two parts. If we don't, you've effectively doubled the number of research choices the player has to think about. That might fly in a mod or scenario, but I doubt it will ever fly in a Firaxis game.

It has to be systemic. For example, mastery is required for civics, buildings, wonders, and units. But discovery is enough for everything else, including the ability to unlock further technologies. Or, another separate example: discovery gives you everything but wonders and units. Something to that effect.

Like I said, I think there are a number of interesting ways we can accomplish the mastery system.

The real problem, to me, is coming up with a manageable way to divide every technology into two parts. If we don't, you've effectively doubled the number of research choices the player has to think about. That might fly in a mod or scenario, but I doubt it will ever fly in a Firaxis game.

It has to be systemic. For example, mastery is required for civics, buildings, wonders, and units. But discovery is enough for everything else, including the ability to unlock further technologies. Or, another separate example: discovery gives you everything but wonders and units. Something to that effect.

Actually, I think I like the idea where Mastery augments what you've discovered: Agriculture gives you Farms, Mastery gives you +1 :food: for Farms. Or Military Tradition gives you Cuirassers, Mastery gives you Cavalry. Writing gives you libraries, Mastery gives you +5% :science:. Pottery gives you Granaries, Mastery gives you 66% retention. Monarchy gives you Hereditary Rule, Mastery gives you 50% more happiness running the Civic (so 2 troops give you 3 :)). Sailing gives you Galleys, Mastery gives Galleys +1 movement and cargo (or create a new unit with those specs).

The goal is to make Mastery something that is desirable when it happens, yet isn't a gamebreaker (whether you have it or you don't have it). It's a reward for focusing on an area, without penalizing you for not focusing.

If you do it that way, though, you're not too far off from effectively doubling the tech tree. How is that different from having an agriculture tech that gives you farms, and an agriculture mastery tech that gives you +1 for farms?

I think it would be balanced and desirable, but too complicated for Firaxis's taste. Could make a fun mod, though.

If you do it that way, though, you're not too far off from effectively doubling the tech tree. How is that different from having an agriculture tech that gives you farms, and an agriculture mastery tech that gives you +1 for farms?


Because you don't have to research the Mastery tech. It's something that happens because of what you choose to do in the game. Keep building and working Farms, and eventually you'll get +1 :food:. Build enough libraries, and you'll get more :science: out of them. Win enough battles with Cuirassers, and you can upgrade them to Cavalry.

Can one consider it a doubled tech tree? Sure, if they're inclined to. But I see it as a Tech Promotion. Gain enough Experience in the Tech, and you've earned a Promotion. Military shouldn't be the only aspect of the game where the more you do, the more you get.

I'm sure you do the same amount of research for the same number of effects, but the player has to keep track of twice as many nodes. The military tree is still 30-40 promotions unlocked by a single XP value.

If Firaxis wouldn't do an 180 node tech tree, I'm not sure I could see them doing this either.

Why does the player have to keep track of twice as many nodes?

EDIT: Your arguments are circular at best, self-contradictory at worst. First you say 'why not have a Tech that provides +1 :food: instead of Agriculture Mastery' and then you say 'Then there are too many nodes'. You're championing in one post what you're condemning in the next post.

I suppose that this could be implemented by DOUBLING the number of techs on the tech tree...
By creating a Mining (Discovery) and Mining (Mastery) tech. (Akin to a xxx I, xxx II, xxx III system). However, how you would make building a farm lead to a decrease of beakers for Ag (M) is beyond me. I'll take a look at this, when I get back to the States.

EDIT: I suppose this is a cruder form of a double-tech tree, but I think it is possible, and could serve as a Darwinistic base for the smooth model proposed in the first post.

Why does the player have to keep track of twice as many nodes?

EDIT: Your arguments are circular at best, self-contradictory at worst. First you say 'why not have a Tech that provides +1 :food: instead of Agriculture Mastery' and then you say 'Then there are too many nodes'. You're championing in one post what you're condemning in the next post.

That's what I'm saying. Mastery and discovery nodes is starting to look like a doubly-long tech tree. It's really not much different from adding a spin off technology for every existing technology, and migrating half the abilities to those spin offs. That's what the player has to keep track of -- 180 nodes, rather than 90.

That's what I'm saying. Mastery and discovery nodes is starting to look like a doubly-long tech tree. It's really not much different from adding a spin off technology for every existing technology, and migrating half the abilities to those spin offs. That's what the player has to keep track of -- 180 nodes, rather than 90.


But the player doesn't have to keep track of it. Since he can't directly control Mastery, why would he worry about it? Or to put it a different way, when was the last time you researched Replaceable Parts specifically to get the +1 :hammers: for Wind/Watermills?

I think you might be getting somewhere. To me, the entire system would have to be designed that way. Discovery would always get you some kind of generic hammer bonus or something like that, while mastery would always get you a unit/building/wonder/civic. The second that the player has to remember "well I get fighters if I discover flight, but bombers if i master it" -- you start getting into that double-tech-tree type of complexity. When the player simply knows "I'm not going to get any units unless I master a tech", the cognitive load is instantly easier.

I haven't been following this closely, but it sounds very interesting and has potential.

The mastery bit is a puzzler, though. dh_epic's basic worry sounds plausible: If mastery confers added benefits, then in principle it doesn't seem much different that splitting a tech into two component techs—even if one of them is not directly within the player's power to realize. And that could double what the player has to keep track of.

I know dh_epic offered this as a kind of solution, but I think it would make it worse:

Discovery would always get you some kind of generic hammer bonus or something like that, while mastery would always get you a unit/building/wonder/civic.

Since players are more interested in units/buildings/wonders/civics than in generic hammer bonuses, making the former fall out of mastery would instantly make people focus on mastery. And since mastery follows discovery, that would double what they would have to keep track of, wouldn't it? :confused:

On the other hand, if go with what ChrTh has been saying—that mastery is outside the player's control, and it pretty much only offers up minor bonuses—then mastery doesn't seem like such a big deal. And I thought one of the ideas behind making a discovery/mastery distinction was to offset the "beelining" strategy. If the really good stuff is part of discovery, then beelining would still make sense.

But, like I said, I haven't been paying intense attention to the thread, and so I'm probably missing something.

It's not so much whether you put more on discovery or mastery. It has to be systemic. The reason I like "units, wonders, buildings, and civics are on mastery" is because a player can know exactly what to expect from a technology in advance. I know that iron working will give me iron, and I know that mastering it will give me swords. It helps keep the division of game-abilities organized.

And yeah, mastery would generally be the rule. You'd have very few instances of someone discovering but not mastering. Sometimes, however, they'd discover one technology just to get the pre-requisite technology for something else -- and go on to master deeper techs in the tree. The early technology might only stay discovered for some time. That strikes me as the most typical use for this system.

I agree with Epic on the above. State clearly what falls under discovery and what falls under mastery. Other than that, I find the idea good. In the early discussion, we had an option to enable or disable this form of techtree so that you could play with all prereqs being "hard" is this still part of the plan?

Options are always part of the plan. But the truth is that Firaxis isn't going to implement two versions of the game -- one with a key feature, and one without -- and balance it twice. Imagine they balanced the game with civics, but then implemented old Civ-3 style governments with the civics tied together as an option. Even the tech tree would change in its balance, now that certain techs no longer enable worthwhile civics!

The idea has to be good enough for Firaxis that it is the "standard" way to play.

Hi!

I have read this and (to some extent) the former threads about this new tech tree idea.
It sounds VERY promising to me.

Let me add my thoughts (which are in the making, trying to add something to the discussion)

(I will write of not many things in a post - I hope it keeps things more clear)

1.

I think that :science: should be only for DISCOVERY

I think Mastery should be achieved SOLELY through actions of what the player's civ can do:

actions can be a lot :)

active:
building something in the cities,
improving land,
dealing with the sliders,
doing diplomacy actions
war: fighting with units
exploring land
founding cities

passive (state of something):
having certain kind of civics
having population of some kind (happy, healthy...)
accumulating culture, gold in treasury, espionage, science
change or state of all value of demographics

...maybe the list is not full ;)

It has to be systemic. For example, mastery is required for civics, buildings, wonders, and units. But discovery is enough for everything else, including the ability to unlock further technologies. Or, another separate example: discovery gives you everything but wonders and units. Something to that effect.

I agree with dh_epic and hold it crucial to be systemic.

Earlier I said that to achive Mastery could be through actions.

There is a big question, though:
Should Discovery of a tech give the means by which actions can be carried out to get Mastery?

If we answer was YES, then we would have to make a system that makes it clear that each and ever tech's Discovery phase gives something to the player to do action with... like a unit or civics or whatever option... something the player can "toy with"...

Would it be good? Can we then set aside anything really worthwhile to Mastery?

I don't believe a simple bonus or improved version of a unit/building/whatever is interesting enough for the player so really carve for Mastery

*

So I think actions to get to Mastery should be carried out by the player with the use of "toys"
the player got through earlier Masteries of techs...

All new "toys" should go to Mastery,
Discovery would give bonuses of some sort

(I know that in this case there is the problem of how to get the first Masteries,
but I leave this now unsolved ;))

Hey gang, I'm back ... I'll be updating the thread tomorrow.

I still say you should have kept the Abandonment system. I don't know why you would disgarded the system without fully testing it (what I suggested you do with technology streaming)

alot of good ideas here ,on discovery why not just assign intelagence points to your population.this might closer represent how technology comes about.
the only draw back (i actualy think this would be a plus)is that everything in the game would have to be based on population including trade and conquest.

Or to put it a different way, when was the last time you researched Replaceable Parts specifically to get the +1 for Wind/Watermills?

If I had enough Windmills, I sure as hell did.

And +1 food from farms is huge.

Secondly, how do you teach the AI to deal with this?

Thirdly, how do you prevent players from skipping base techs and going all the way to modern armor? Well, not that far -- but the rate at which the tech tree increases lightbulb costs isn't as high as the benefits scale up.

if your using actions as the basis for tech ,then all the animals roaming around early in the game should also have horses ,cows ,pigs ,sheep etc all of the domestic animals and attacking these animals will lead to the tech of domestication (specific to the type of animal that you attack).