Rhye's of Europe Technology Tree Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 2

3Miro

Nov 14, 2008, 06:26 PM

And how many of those are actually European. I guess we have to start from scratch:

Holy City Shrines: already there, no comment.
National Epic: In the files as Triumphant Arch
AP (as in RFC): could be pre-build in Rome or ignore it for now until we settle on the Papal State.
Noter Dame: include it just as in RFC.
Versailles: include just as in RFC.
Leaning Tower: include as in RFC.
Great Lighthouse: could be pre-build in Alexandria, but nerf the bonus to +2 trade routes only for the city where it is build.
Sistine Chapel: include as in RFC.
The Dome of the Rock: replaces the Spiral Minaret.
The West Wall: starts pre-build in Jerusalem, I am not sure of the effect, happiness bonus for holding the holiest city in the region and/or better spread of Jewish Quarters.
The Kremlin: either the gold hurry bonus or decreases maintenance and Versailles could start a golden age.

Independent Church/Westminster: national wonder, requires Protestantism as state religion and removes the "war against brothers in faith" penalty. Also the defying resolution penalty.

The Round Church: world wonder, build by Simeon in 9th century in Preslav. It had some very unique architecture, mixed Greko-Roman plus pagan Bulgarian, it consisted of several concentric circles signifying the planets in the solar system. Could symbolize Bulgaria's first independent church, same as the IC above plus decreases WW by 25% (Simeon fought many wars).

The Golden Bull: from Hungary, allow all religious civics. (anyone could build it)

The Cordoban Irrigation: some wonder that works like the Hanging Gardens.

The Norse something: an equivalent to Moai Statues, signifying the Norse superiority at sea.

The names could be changed, we should avoid using specific nation names for the wonders, above is just an idea and from where it comes.

Oxford University, Globe Theatre, Hermitage: just as in RFC, national wonders.

Heroic Epic should be replaced by something German to help the UHV. Make it a World Wonder

In general we should have at least one wonder that was build in the period by our nations. We need something Polish, Portuguese, Spanish, both Russians, Italian city states get only the Leaning Tower and the Sistine Chapel maybe something more, Austrian, Ottoman, Swedish and Dutch. Not that every nation should build its own wonder, and one nation could be represented by several wonders, but all should be represented.

jessiecat

Nov 15, 2008, 04:06 AM

I'll post a new proposed list incl. your ideas to the Wonders thread later.
BTW Have a look at the files for proposed wonders I posted there this morning.

LaughingTulkas

Nov 30, 2008, 01:20 AM

jessiecat

Nov 30, 2008, 02:21 AM

I know I'm not part of the dev team, but I read through this whole thread simply because I'm in love with RFC and just found out about this project. I do have one comment on the tech tree though.

Does "Replaceable Parts" refer to "Interchangeable parts" as I suspect it does? If so, it is coming way to early in the timeline. Interchangeable parts wasn't even conceptualized until around 1800, and wasn't made practical until later than that. Perhaps something to do with "mills" or the like would be better, the first sawmill was made in 1328, roughly right in between the invention of the clock and the printing press.

I'm not sure how this affects whatever you have tied to that tech, but it would make it more historically accurate just from a naming side of things.

You're basically correct in your point about the name "Replaceable Parts" as meaning "interchangeable" as well but not necessarily the same thing. However your're not right about them not occurring until late as 1800. Many early cultures like the Celts, Indians and Romans had perfected a system of smelting metals, pouring them into moulds and producing identical components. What we are referring to is the systematic production techniques in weapons manufacturing which revolutionized gun making on a vast scale in the early 17th.C. Components like firing mechanisms, pans, locks, triggers and other parts were produced in their hundreds which allowed swapping of parts and repairing of weapons feasible for the first time. So a technology like this one being available about 1600 is perfectly appropriate IMO.

LaughingTulkas

Nov 30, 2008, 10:24 PM

You're basically correct in your point about the name "Replaceable Parts" as meaning "interchangeable" as well but not necessarily the same thing. However your're not right about them not occurring until late as 1800. Many early cultures like the Celts, Indians and Romans had perfected a system of smelting metals, pouring them into moulds and producing identical components. What we are referring to is the systematic production techniques in weapons manufacturing which revolutionized gun making on a vast scale in the early 17th.C. Components like firing mechanisms, pans, locks, triggers and other parts were produced in their hundreds which allowed swapping of parts and repairing of weapons feasible for the first time. So a technology like this one being available about 1600 is perfectly appropriate IMO.

While cast moldings were definitely in use since very early times, such parts were not truly "interchangable" in the way I think you are using the term. Also, the revolution of the gun industry was not in the early 17th century, Honore Blanc made some of the first guns with interchangeable parts in 1778, (I realize some few had done this earlier, perhaps as early as 1720ish, but they didn't have any influence and their work was largely unsuccessful) and it didn't catch on until closer to 1800 and after. Also, the printing press was invented around 1439, so having interchangeable parts (which you said should come around 1600, even if you think i'm wrong that it should be closer to 1800) as a prerequisite for this does not seem correct to me. That is really the main thing I was pointing out, that the printing press was at least a hundred years before replaceable parts, and probably more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchangeable_parts

LaughingTulkas

Nov 30, 2008, 10:27 PM

jessiecat

Dec 01, 2008, 03:10 AM

Also, according to your picture of the tech tree, replaceable parts comes at the beginning of the "late middle ages" or roughly 1300-1400, unless i'm reading something wrong, which is a little earlier than 1600.

Sorry if I'm quibbling, you've put in all the work and your opinion matters more than mine, I just felt like it didn't make sense to me.

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you nor do I think my opinion is any more important than yours.
I do agree that replaceable parts does imply the technique of milling and even machine tools.
So therefore it should appear on the tech tree after steam engines or even machine tools itself.
But musketry itself was advanced in the early 17th.C. by better cast moulding techniques,
first developed in clock-making, which standardized gun parts so multiple examples of the
same weapon could be easily produced by gun makers. So in that sense the parts were replaceable.
But I'd be happy to see replaceable parts move further along the tech tree requiring
steam engines. That would satisfy historical authenticity I think.:)

Barak

Dec 01, 2008, 08:04 AM

Having played numerous play throughs with various (but not all) civs I have noticed that the tech tree is not really all that complete yet. In the late game stages, I find that there are not enough buildings to build, and the techs come too quickly. Astronomy in only 3 turns in the 1490s for instance.

Considering how many of the UHVs require playing till 1700 or so and culture is not really a way to win as there are no wonders yet, I think the technology endgame needs to be lengthened.

3Miro

Dec 01, 2008, 08:32 AM

We should make all techs more expensive, tech cost is on my to-do list.

Barak

Dec 01, 2008, 08:35 AM

We should make all techs more expensive, tech cost is on my to-do list.

I feel the early game goes about how we would expect, but once civs build their libraries and monasteries, they research at a much faster rate. Plus I've found that I use more scientist specialists as they come so much earlier than Artists or Merchants.

sedna17

Dec 01, 2008, 12:25 PM

I'm not totally happy with early-game yet, but I agree it's a lot more fully fleshed out than later. We do need some more late-game buildings, and almost certainly some more techs in order to keep things going. If people want to make suggestions for late-game buildings or techs, that would be helpful. The more fully fleshed out the better -- if you come up with a good niche that needs filling with a building and you can find appropriate art I can almost guarantee it'll get in.

3Miro

Dec 01, 2008, 12:59 PM

IMHO we don't need more techs (maybe 1-2 but not many), we need to change the tech rate. Also, for buildings, we need production bonuses, with no whip and no factories production would be problematic.

Barak

Dec 02, 2008, 05:53 AM

I agree about the production bonus issue. I also think health can be a problem early on for civs with no access to fishing.

Cethegus

Dec 07, 2008, 02:45 AM

I don't have access to Civ4 at the moment so I must ask here... Are there Jails in RFCE? If there aren't, I think it could be one addition and perhaps a passable suggestion for a Papal UB (Inquisition).

jessiecat

Dec 07, 2008, 02:57 AM

Cethegus

Dec 07, 2008, 08:40 AM

We have the art for a dungeon but i'm not sure it's in yet. I'll check.

Yeah, I thought so when brainstorming for a Papal UB. An espionage-related building would be spot on and I know at least History In The Making BTS mod introduces us to the Dungeon graphic as Spain's second UB.

Not to mention, I overheard RFCE needs more buildings and prisons are perfectly justifiable to add in.

jessiecat

Dec 07, 2008, 09:26 AM

Yeah, I thought so when brainstorming for a Papal UB. An espionage-related building would be spot on and I know at least History In The Making BTS mod introduces us to the Dungeon graphic as Spain's second UB.

Not to mention, I overheard RFCE needs more buildings and prisons are perfectly justifiable to add in.

There is already a dungeon which is enabled by the Constitution tech. Its already got art as well.
Next time you do a play-test check out our civilopedia and tech tree.

Cethegus

Dec 08, 2008, 01:13 AM

There is already a dungeon which is enabled by the Constitution tech. Its already got art as well.
Next time you do a play-test check out our civilopedia and tech tree.

I will, I just don't have my Civ 4 with me at the moment.

Whitefire

Dec 08, 2008, 09:27 AM

st.lucifer

Dec 08, 2008, 09:47 AM

My final 0.02 :commerce: on this topic. If y'all disagree, then I'll drop it.

Having the ability for so many units, buildings, resources and improvements to be constructed or improved from the word go is ludicrous. Part of the strategy of Vanilla civ is having to strategically choose a techpath in order to suit your conditions. Do you want Animal Husbandry for Pastures or Bronze Working for that forested Copper hill? Do you go for an early wonder or run towards military techs for an early conquest?

By removing pretty much all these choices, the game yields a highly generic strategy for every starting condition. The only choices posed to you are whether you want a strong cavalry or crossbows first. Then, if you go for Matchlock or Astronomy (assuming Astronomy will yield Colonies in the future).

Even worse is the early access to Catapults. I don't know what level you guys play at, but on Emperor+, the only deterrent a player has to early conquest is 1) cultural boundaries and 2) tech disparity after Catapults come online. With Catapults at easy access for all starting civs, coupled with a massive amount of Indie cities on the map, results in an early, game tipping expansion push that any competent player can leverage to their advantage.

Either more early techs need to be added in order to spread out the discovery of resources, the improvement of resources and the access to military units or the existing tree needs to have these new changes.

I don't disagree, although I'll admit to playing on game levels low enough that I don't rely on catapults (although perhaps it would be worthwhile to try that tactic).

Perhaps we should weaken and push back catapults, and rethink some of the other resources?

We'd talked about having coal be required for steel, so it might make sense to move it back to blast furnace and requiring it to build all heavy units.

As far as the other resources go... I'm not sure how we can work around this. Iron, copper, horses - to preserve any sort of historical accuracy, these have to be workable from the beginning. We could move plantations back a few techs to make luxury development more challenging, but that doesn't get around the independent city issue.

We could increase the strength of independent garrisons, but as many of have pointed out in the feedback thread, the independents tech quickly and frequently have marauding stacks of death that take out entire civs (in my last game, they wiped out Germany, Poland, and Genoa, and prevented Venice from improving a single tile). Ultimately, the human player will have an advantage vs. the independents, as the AI is scared to attack them even after losing a city to revolt.

Perhaps we should think again about reducing the number of independent cities?

jessiecat

Dec 08, 2008, 10:29 AM

I tend to agree with you. The indy cities tech too fast, produce too many advanced units and are too aggressive. (Read my complaint in the bugs and quick fixes thread). I don't know what kind of game Whitefire is used to; conquest?, domination? (And what's with this "Emperor+" level anyway?) but I thought we were trying to create a mod with a bit of sublety where the human player is expected to win by a number of ways other than the mere exercise of brute force. The problem with indies lies in their being overproductive not the opposite. Have you ever seen indies in RFC as strong as we've got them? Of course not. We need to strike the right balance here, esp. once we've coded in the barbarian invasions as well.

sedna17

Dec 08, 2008, 03:27 PM

I agree we need more difficult forced choices early on, and that the game is far from balanced yet. I really appreciate your well reasoned comments, Whitefire.

Here are some of my thoughts in return. Just thinking out loud...

1) The early game needs to play rather differently for the mediterranean civs (part. Byzantium/Arabs) in order to be historically accurate. I think Byzantium, anyway, is faced with some interesting early choices. What cities do I give up? Which do I try to re-conquer when they break away? Playing this crumbling empire is definitely not for everyone, but that's fine. The Franks are a difficult question. If we want to allow them (under a human) some shot at re-creating Charlemange's empire then they need to start out with a fair bit, but then they really need to collapse, but then they need to resume a dominant status after the 100-years war. That's a lot to make happen out of one civ.

2) The early tech tree does present SOME choices. Broadly speaking going down the different tech "branches" -- sea access/trade, city defense/siege, culture/science, better civics, better cavalry. Ideally, cross-requirements between these different branches prevents too much deep bee-lining while still allowing plenty of choice. We don't have a lot of early "puzzle"-like UHVs, but ideally these present another strategic choice by forcing players to pursue non-traditional paths.

3) This is Rhye's and Fall we're talking about. Currently the stability is dialed down, but that won't last. Access to catapults is not the end-all like it is in vanilla -- a large empire is/should be much more difficult to hold on to. Civs should be constrained by stability, the rise of new civs, and barbarians/plague to a high degree.

3Miro

Dec 09, 2008, 09:49 AM

Barak

Dec 10, 2008, 07:22 AM

sedna great point on #3. Stability needs tweaking.

I don't think we should return the huge penalties from RFC, in general we don't want civs collapsing unless conquered (or at least large portions of them being chopped away). It would be more realistic to increase the secession rate (it is already higher than in RFC). That way, of you conquer a large empire, simply the periphery would start to split.

It was always my understanding that the theory was of RFE was to watch as Europe develops over time and lead your civ to victory! In RFC this could be done with smaller empires, but with our map and number of civs it seems like we should be able to exist as stable empires with more cities in our core areas.

Of course stability would be hit with poor economies, over expansion to strange lands, bad civic combinations, unhealhtiness/unhappiness or too many wars.

Yes, civs should still collapse, but not if the civ is playing it "right".

3Miro

Dec 10, 2008, 07:56 AM

Right now, as long as you are in your core/normal are you can expand with very little difficulty. There should be a bigger hit for conquering territory outside the core. Yes we seem to agree that civs should collapse, but not as often as in RFC.

jessiecat

Dec 10, 2008, 08:13 AM

I agree with 3Miro's point that whole empires shouldn't collapse due to instabity but that single cities should revolt as a result. I've never been a fan of the total collapse scenario in RFC at all. As far as having more cities, why is that desirable? Surely we want the player to win by achieving defined goals like fulfilling the UHV conditions or by cultural or diplomatic means, rather than simply wiping out their neighbours militarily. I, for one, have no interest at all in winning by conquering the known world. If I was, I'd still be playing Age of Empires or Total War, not something a bit more subtle and intelligent like Civilization.

Barak

Dec 10, 2008, 08:18 AM

jessiecat

Dec 10, 2008, 08:29 AM

There should of course be ways for the entire civ to collapse. It has after all happened in the history of the world :)

But I would also feel good about civs that have cities declare independence with out the entire collapse.

I do agree of course that a civ be likely to collapse completely when it's capitol is conquered. But not always. Historically this has happened where a new capitol is formed and they carry on the fight from there. And even to win. And having one or two cities declare independence shouldn't necessarily mean the end of the game for the player either, just a temporary setback.
I'm more concerned right now about the independents teching too fast and out-producing other players. And with them acting like a huge aggressive empire as well. They're nothing at all like that in RFC. Why are they so much more powerful in RFCE? Where did we get that from?

3Miro

Dec 10, 2008, 10:49 AM

Indies in RFCE are simply much more than in RFC. I don't know about the tech rate, sedna could hit them with RFCEBalance (should work just as the other civs).

One idea would be to unsure that indies fight among themselves (always war). I think we can do that fairly easily from Barbs.py (in which case we may have to decrease the WW for the indies)

sedna17

Dec 10, 2008, 11:30 AM

Both good suggestions for the indies. Really though, I think we have too many of them. There was a suggestion in another thread about which ones should be eliminated.

This also touches on the performance issue of course. We have a huge map with lots of incredibly productive land area and many civs. The game will play a little slow. There are improvements to be made, but we do have a LOT of units getting on the board very early. It's mostly the AI planning what to do with units between turns that is causing the slowdown I feel. Looking through some ancient threads I understood how many of the "features" of Rhye's and Fall Rhye put in mainly to improve performance on a big map with many civs (late-spawning, collapse, plagues, embassies). We can tolerate a somewhat more complex game I think.

A few things to do to reduce the AI-wait time:

Remove some independent cities
Make independents fight each other as suggsted (killing off units)
Replace some independent cities with Barbs (even more fighting)
Barbarian invasions (more units initially, but if they destroy units/cities then a net gain)
More plagues. Everyone likes plagues. Currently the first one hits around the Black Death, but there are a number of early ones we might introduce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_plagues
Decrease number/size of cities by increasing city separation. We can 1) forbid cities to be founded less than 2 squares apart or 2) tell the AI to build more spread-out empires or 3) decrease the quality of the land/number of growth resources in certain areas.
Ensure some early civs fall, even if we allow them to rise again later: Arguably when played by the AI the early Franks and Burgundians should BOTH collapse and re-spawn later. Al Andalus should normally be defeated by Spain. Kiev and Moscow probably both get wiped out by the Mongols (although that's not until 1200+) and can re-spawn later.

st.lucifer

Dec 10, 2008, 12:05 PM

KaiserBenjamin

Dec 10, 2008, 02:43 PM

Just FYI, I did a Dutch spawn using the latest version (December 9th) and they were still behind in technology relative to the other civilizations.

3Miro

Dec 10, 2008, 03:25 PM

One other thing which may or may not be related -

As things currently stand, the only units which become obsolete are UU's (some of them quite quickly). There are often large stacks of obsolete units moving around aimlessly from one independent city to another, often on different ends of the map. In part, this is due to the fast autopeace rate (although I think this is a good thing - a drawn-out war with the fast-teching, powerful indies is devastating; try playing as Venice for proof) - the AI starts moving troops towards a front halfway across the map, and then turns them around as the war ends two turns later.

You have a point. The purpose of the Plague was to kill a lot of obsolete units. We can increase the power of the plague. Also, for gameplay purposes we could benefit form a plague around 1000AD, but that doesn't happen. Jessiecat could not find such a plague, which means there probably wasn't one (I wonder how long people had to wait for the year to pass, back then).

-The tech and probably production rate for indies should be decreased.
-Some of the AI's should be forced to spread out (Russia, Norse, Kiev, maybe Hungary, for Bulgaria I am afraid that would contribute even further to the unhistorical eastward spread).
-We should probably slow the growth of some nations (the early ones).
-Add barbarians that would do damage and decrease the number of units and improvements.
-more balancing is required for the Dutch and probably other civs.

Those could be fixed in RFCBalance. sedna should be able to do it (tell me if you need help, it is just changing the constants, but make sure you read the comments to figure the right constants and right values).

-Theoretically I could try to "tweak" the independent AI so that it works faster. I may be able to do that by making the indy AI more "stupid". Would help the indy problem and perhaps speed the game.

jessiecat

Dec 10, 2008, 03:40 PM

Both good suggestions for the indies. Really though, I think we have too many of them. There was a suggestion in another thread about which ones should be eliminated.

Remove some independent cities
Make independents fight each other as suggsted (killing off units)
Replace some independent cities with Barbs (even more fighting)
Barbarian invasions (more units initially, but if they destroy units/cities then a net gain)
More plagues. Everyone likes plagues. Currently the first one hits around the Black Death, but there are a number of early ones we might introduce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_plagues
Decrease number/size of cities by increasing city separation. We can 1) forbid cities to be founded less than 2 squares apart or 2) tell the AI to build more spread-out empires or 3) decrease the quality of the land/number of growth resources in certain areas.
Ensure some early civs fall, even if we allow them to rise again later: Arguably when played by the AI the early Franks and Burgundians should BOTH collapse and re-spawn later. Al Andalus should normally be defeated by Spain. Kiev and Moscow probably both get wiped out by the Mongols (although that's not until 1200+) and can re-spawn later.

My suggestions;

1. Eliminate Tours, Leipzig, Memel, Minsk, Tver and Pisa

2. Make indies fight each other (Always at war?) and slow their tech rate. Agreed.

3. Change Pamplona, Nantes, Beograd, Riga and Kharkov to barbarian. Add Astrakhan as a strong barbarian base for later invasions.

4. Barbarian invasions able to raze indy cities but not civ ones?

5, More plagues but shorter duration. (who really luvs plague anyway?)

6. Minimum distance between cities to be increased from 1 to 2.

7. More incentive for AI civs to expand as required for their UHV conditions.

8. Code in respawning for all civs in core area cities where historically appropriate.

EDIT

9. Indys not allowed to build wonders (In my last game they built 6)

Whitefire

Dec 10, 2008, 06:16 PM

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 01:28 AM

Please remember that this is the tech tree thread.

So I'm going to work on some shifting of the early game and add in several new technologies, with the hopes of causing some more strategic choices. This should be ready by tomorrow.

I am aware of that. Just replying to sedna's suggestions. I'd be interested to see how you propose "shifting" the early game though adding in several new technologies is desirable as long as they have some function other than just being arbitrary fillers to stretch the tech tree.

micbic

Dec 11, 2008, 05:28 AM

My suggestions;

1. Eliminate Tours, Leipzig, Memel, Minsk, Tver and Pisa

6. Minimum distance between cities to be increased from 1 to 2.

1. Yes. That means that Genoa should start with 3 Settlers instead of two.
6. That means new city name maps!!!

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 06:23 AM

1. Yes. That means that Genoa should start with 3 Settlers instead of two.
6. That means new city name maps!!!

1. Why? Isn't two enough to start with already? Nobody should get 3 IMO.

2. Why? Not much change required. Maybe rename the odd tile in a few places.

Barak

Dec 11, 2008, 06:32 AM

I disagree on Pisa. I like having it in and flipping to Genoa. If Pisa is removed there will never be a city there as Firenze's culture will overtake the spot.

And I agree with Whitefire that this discussion shouldn't be in the Tech tree thread :)

If we do have an extra plague, I would like to see a way for Warriors to upgrade to SOMETHING. Many of our units kind of stop upgrading. Why would there be guys with clubs walking around in the high Renaissance? I can believe Lancers, Heavy Macemen and Pike units in the early stages of Gunpowder, but by line infantry any military worth its salt would have taken away the swords and maces and replaced them with rifled muskets.

Perhaps we need another late foot unit so everyone doesn't become a line infantry?

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 07:05 AM

st.lucifer

Dec 11, 2008, 09:53 AM

Barak

Dec 11, 2008, 10:05 AM

Arguably, most of the armies of the Medieval period (and some later in Poland and Ukraine) consisted mostly of guys walking around with clubs and/or pointed sticks.

Maybe not so much in the High Renaissance, but there's just something reassuring about walking around with a big thumpin' stick in one's hand... :D

Agreed, but once line infantry is available most nations would throw away those clubs and pointy sticks. In the age of musketmen, mounted units still used lances and swords, but eventually used guns.

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 11:04 AM

Just to clear up one small misconception. Line infantry in our mod does not mean rifled muskets in the post-Napoleonic sense. I see them as regular infantry equiped with smoothbore muskets circa 1760s (Seven Years War) with a lot less range and accuracy than rifles. So overlapping them with pikes and even earlier weapons isn't unreasonable. As st. lucifer says, lots of armies in the 17th. to 18th.Cs relied on masses of peasants armed with pikes, pole axes, billhooks, scythes or even clubs.

Barak

Dec 11, 2008, 11:09 AM

st.lucifer

Dec 11, 2008, 11:26 AM

oh, then why do they have such a high strength rating? 16 seems awfully strong. That makes them twice as strong as macemen. In relation to regular Civ, they are more powerful than Riflemen.

I'm fine with the scaling as it currently is. A regiment of infantry in formation, even with smoothbore muskets, should have pretty good odds against a regiment of guys with clubs/maces/swords.

Barak

Dec 11, 2008, 12:41 PM

Remember of course that plate armor was designed to stop musket balls. By the time that rifled muskets began to be used, the accuracy and power of the minie ball caused armor to no longer be used.

Otherwise, the soldier with a ball in his shoulder or arm would dismember the musket man while he was reloading. Of course in the mid to late 18th century warfare started with lines of musket men shooting from massed formation. After a few volleys, there would be a charge where the soldiers would use their bayonets and the officers would use their cavalry swords.

Whitefire

Dec 11, 2008, 01:58 PM

Here's my reasoning, so you can argue that instead of just the techs ;).

There are 3 (maybe 4) technology branches in Vanilla Civ/RFC: Military, Religious, Other (Other being worker techs, civic techs (Communism, Biology, Democracy), building tech, and "delayers" (Military Science). There is a rough balance between the three branches, with Military being the arguable strongest. Arguable because you might have Modern Tanks, but can't even build Markets to grow your economy. Thus making you unable to be conquered or conquer.

So, I went off of the existing tech tree in the Dec. 9th build, and re-arranged a few items. Also, I am re-proposing a few resources as "stop gaps". Remember, the goal is to increase the variety of units, techs and the lifespan of existing units. Also, we have a few holes to fill, like a good city attacker (man-at-arms) for the mid and late game, which will be addressed after the early re-work.

This tech tree ends at the column of techs headed by Lateen Sails (blast furnace, civil service, etc.)

Theology becomes Christianity. Great Schism added as an unresearchable starting tech for the Byzantines to found Orthodox. Philosophy and Theology went hand-in-hand during the Medieval period, so I prefer Theology as a pre-req for whatever tech allows the rise of Protestantism, since the increase of rational thought lead to challenges of religious dogma. If Christianity is too specific, then it can be renamed to something more generic like, "Place of Worship Construction".

Art renamed to Byzantine Art for theme.

Aristocracy added to space out Chivalry, giving Heavy and Light Cavalry units and UUs more time to be effective. Could be a good place to stick a wonder or civic.

I am still insisting on adding the Carolingian Renaissance. It was the first major step from the dark ages to the Medieval period. Scholars came together, made advances in written communication, art, music, etc. and eventually diseminated to the various monasteries in the region. In a large sense, without Charlemagne, the increase of knowledge in the monasteries of his empires never would have happened.

Astrolabe and Map Making swapped. Map Making renamed to Cartography. This is to reflect the increased accuracy of map making that came with the Astrolabe. Also, I added the ability to trade along the coast and trade maps with Cartography. It's odd to be able to trade maps once you have better sails instead of when you learn how to make maps.

Paper added. Can't have Literature without it.

Added Artesian Wells to address health issues.

Spinning Wheel added. It now reveals Sheep/Wool

Fermentation added, now reveals Wine and Barley?(I can live with Barley starting already revealed)

In total, I have added 9 techs. Of which 4 are dead-ends. Most of the dead-ends are for non-essential bonuses.

Military Overhaul

New resource needs to be added: Tin

Tin and Copper are now pre-requisites for the early units Axemen, Spearmen and Mounted Infantry.

Bronze Casting - To introduce the idea of using pre-made dies to mass produce weapons.

Chainmail - Another tech to space out the jump from starting units and the mid-game units. Also, several unit types (bowmen specifically, but also pike units and horse units) would rarely, if ever, wear plate armor, so it's a bit more accurate as a pre-req.

Warrior renamed to Peasant. Upgrade path is now Page (with Feudalism) and Mounted Squire (with Chivalry). Squires and pages cannot be built and Peasants become obsolete at Vassalage. Squires and Pages give bonuses to Heavy Cavalry and Knight units (to be determined). They do not upgrade to Gunpowder units.

New Units:

Peasant: 2:strength: 1:move:

Page: 4:strength: 1:move:

Mounted Squire: 5:strength: 2:move: +25% vs. Archers

Verily

Dec 11, 2008, 02:13 PM

Fermentation would be highly inappropriate to have in the tech tree. Germanic peoples had been brewing hops for centuries before the fall of Rome, and knowledge of grape fermentation was continuous through the end of the Roman Empire into the medieval period.

On the same vein, while a Spinning Wheel tech might be appropriate to unlock additional benefit from sheep, perhaps some extra commerce, sheep were domesticated and kept for both food and wool long, long before the spinning wheel reached Europe (c. 1300 CE) or the Middle East (c. 1050).

Whitefire

Dec 11, 2008, 02:27 PM

Verily

Dec 11, 2008, 02:43 PM

Fermentation can be replaced ith Selective Harvesting or Winemaking or Advanced Brewing Texhniques to reflect the interest in fine wines and beer with hops. And, btw, Hops may have been used, but it was rarely used successfully (in the sense of being consistently tasty) until the Medieval Era.

You're really reaching here. Wine and beer were widespread for the entire period. There was no particular point at which they became more prominent, more luxurious, or more "delicious". The evolution of wine regions in France, for example, began in about the twelfth century with monasteries cultivating their own grapes, but there still were no really distinct wine regions until the 17th and 18th centuries, and the process was not marked by any major inventions or leaps forward.

"Advanced Brewing Techniques" would be a farce.

The Spinning Wheel tech comes late enough in the tree that it will be researched around 1100AD by many civs. And once again, it's used to represent a leap in production that makes the resultant products a "luxury".

But sheep aren't a luxury in the game; they're a food resource. Moreover, wool was never a luxury in the sense of being a luxury good. It was exported, but it was always the stock clothing, the sort of thing worn by everyone. Those who wanted better wore linen, cotton or silk.

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 02:53 PM

No fundamental disagreement with these as opening paths to the tech tree. I dispute whether literature needs paper or not as monks wrote on skins, vellum etc. long before paper was introduced from China. But leaving that aside for the moment my main question is this.

You've not indicated where the entry point for Arabia should be. Dropping Theology in favour of Chritianity gives them no religious tech starting point unless we make it as Monasticism. In fact the whole Christianity > Schism >
Byzantine Art > Carolingian Renaissance thread is irrelevent to them.

For any kind of historical realism, Arabia needs a big tech advantage in the beginning and they will need access to Arabic knowledge and Arabic science pretty early on, without going through Guilds, Banking etc.I think that should be available to them right after Monasticism.

Therefore my starting point for Arabia in 650 AD is this.
They need to start with:
Calendar
Architecture
Bronze Casting
Vaulted Arches
Aristocracy

They will not require;
Christianity
Great Schism
Byzantine Art
Carolingian Renaissance

The can then research;
Manorialism
Stirrups
Engineering
Monasticism (leads to Arabic Knowledge)
Artesian Wells
Fermentation
Music
Vaulted Arches
Code of Laws
Literature
Spinning Wheel

In 700AD the Cordobans will start as the Arabs plus
Fermentation
Code of Laws

What do you of this then?

st.lucifer

Dec 11, 2008, 03:12 PM

But sheep aren't a luxury in the game; they're a food resource. Moreover, wool was never a luxury in the sense of being a luxury good. It was exported, but it was always the stock clothing, the sort of thing worn by everyone. Those who wanted better wore linen, cotton or silk.

We've switched sheep into the luxury column to represent cloth. A long time back, when we were debating this, I proposed having a flax resource found in marshy areas to represent linen, but the idea was rejected as making a commonplace (and not location-specific) item into an unneeded luxury. If I understand correctly, this is your argument against wool as a luxury, and it makes sense.

Here's the question - are cotton (only a few available on the map) and silk (same issue) representative enough? Do we need a flax/linen resource?

I have no issue moving sheep back into the food column, but I felt like we had enough health available early in the game (although the base value has changed a bit), and luxuries were hard to come by. If we want to rethink it, that's fine with me.

Whitefire

Dec 11, 2008, 03:16 PM

You're really reaching here. Wine and beer were widespread for the entire period. There was no particular point at which they became more prominent, more luxurious, or more "delicious".

Good, then we can declare them as such whenever we feel like it. Realistically, certain Monasteries were regarded as better than others as far as alcohol production was concerned. Thus, a need to reflect that. I guess we won't reconcile on this point.

But sheep aren't a luxury in the game

Unless something changed in the last update, they are.

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 03:33 PM

We've switched sheep into the luxury column to represent cloth. A long time back, when we were debating this, I proposed having a flax resource found in marshy areas to represent linen, but the idea was rejected as making a commonplace (and not location-specific) item into an unneeded luxury. If I understand correctly, this is your argument against wool as a luxury, and it makes sense.

Here's the question - are cotton (only a few available on the map) and silk (same issue) representative enough? Do we need a flax/linen resource?

I have no issue moving sheep back into the food column, but I felt like we had enough health available early in the game (although the base value has changed a bit), and luxuries were hard to come by. If we want to rethink it, that's fine with me.

The decision to change sheep from a food item to a trade good was correct in my view. I have no problem having a flax resource as well as both were important in cloth manufacture. But as we discussed before, the wool industry was hugely important in Britain, the Low Countries, France and Italy throughout the Middle Ages. In fact, in England and Holland it was at times the single most profitable trade item, amounting to up to a quarter of all annual trade income. To ignore the wool trade in this period would be as foolish as ignoring the tea or tobacco trade in later centuries IMO.

Whitefire

Dec 11, 2008, 03:35 PM

You've not indicated where the entry point for Arabia should be. Dropping Theology in favour of Chritianity gives them no religious tech starting point unless we make it as Monasticism. In fact the whole Christianity > Schism >
Byzantine Art > Carolingian Renaissance thread is irrelevent to them.

Like I said, we can change Christianity to some more generic name than Theology. Also, adding in another, unresearchable tech for the Arabs to found Islam is easy enough. Call it "The Qur’an" or something.

Also addressing your later concern: I really don't care too much about Arabia. We have 2 Islamic civs, with the Ottomans being a late third. Every other civ is European and derived primarily from either Byzantine or Carolingian influence. Heck, the Mongols had more impact on the civs in question than the Arabs.

So, the problem at hand (addressing early Arab technological superiority) can be done in 3 ways.

1) Create an insanely generic tech tree.
2) Forget the Islamic nations, make a more European-centric tree and find a way to include the Islamic nations (my preferred method).
3) Create an entirely separate tree for the Islamic nations (Doable, would be great as far as theme is concerned, but lots of work).

Trust me, I did put thought toward making it a more inclusive tree, but at the end of the day this is the Rise and Fall of Europe, not the Mediterranean, or the Greater European-Near East Region.

This is not entirely my call, but I haven't been able to find a way to reconcile the technological disparity, so abandoning one or separating them entirely is the best way, IMO.

For any kind of historical realism, Arabia needs a big tech advantage in the beginning and they will need access to Arabic knowledge and Arabic science pretty early on, without going through Guilds, Banking etc.I think that should be available to them right after Monasticism.

Therefore my starting point for Arabia in 650 AD is this.
They need to start with:
Calendar
Architecture
Bronze Casting
Vaulted Arches
Aristocracy

They will not require;
Christianity
Great Schism
Byzantine Art
Carolingian Renaissance

The can then research;
Manorialism
Stirrups
Engineering
Monasticism (leads to Arabic Knowledge)
Artesian Wells
Fermentation
Music
Vaulted Arches
Code of Laws
Literature
Spinning Wheel

In 700AD the Cordobans will start as the Arabs plus
Fermentation
Code of Laws

What do you of this then?

How about this: Give them "The Qur’an", have it allow Islamic Art, which leads to Arabic Knowledge. Since they can't research Great Schism or Christianity, they can't get Byzantine Art or Carolingian Renaissance. Make the Pre-reqs for Monasticism, "Christianity OR The Qur’an".

Whitefire

Dec 11, 2008, 03:44 PM

We've switched sheep into the luxury column to represent cloth. A long time back, when we were debating this, I proposed having a flax resource found in marshy areas to represent linen, but the idea was rejected as making a commonplace (and not location-specific) item into an unneeded luxury. If I understand correctly, this is your argument against wool as a luxury, and it makes sense.

Here's the question - are cotton (only a few available on the map) and silk (same issue) representative enough? Do we need a flax/linen resource?

I have no issue moving sheep back into the food column, but I felt like we had enough health available early in the game (although the base value has changed a bit), and luxuries were hard to come by. If we want to rethink it, that's fine with me.

I agree with Jessie, Wool should stay as a trade resource. Cotton is mostly a Near East crop. AFAIK, the weather of Europe was just too harsh for Cotton to be successfully grown. Flax is possible.

jessiecat

Dec 11, 2008, 03:57 PM

Also addressing your later concern: I really don't care too much about Arabia. We have 2 Islamic civs, with the Ottomans being a late third. Every other civ is European and derived primarily from either Byzantine or Carolingian influence. Heck, the Mongols had more impact on the civs in question than the Arabs.

So, the problem at hand (addressing early Arab technological superiority) can be done in 3 ways.

1) Create an insanely generic tech tree.
2) Forget the Islamic nations, make a more European-centric tree and find a way to include the Islamic nations (my preferred method).
3) Create an entirely separate tree for the Islamic nations (Doable, would be great as far as theme is concerned, but lots of work).

Trust me, I did put thought toward making it a more inclusive tree, but at the end of the day this is the Rise and Fall of Europe, not the Mediterranean, or the Greater European-Near East Region.

This is not entirely my call, but I haven't been able to find a way to reconcile the technological disparity, so abandoning one or separating them entirely is the best way, IMO.

How about this: Give them "The Qur’an", have it allow Islamic Art, which leads to Arabic Knowledge. Since they can't research Great Schism or Christianity, they can't get Byzantine Art or Carolingian Renaissance. Make the Pre-reqs for Monasticism, "Christianity OR The Qur’an".

We have been working on this for over a year now and have come to a pretty wide consensus on the need to depict the historical importance of Islam on Europe esp. in learning, science, maths, medicine, technology etc. and you can dismiss it all with a couple of throwaway lines that do nothing but reveal your euro-centric narrow-mindedness and lack of understanding of European history. Fortunately you'll find very few people on this project who share your view. Your contributions remain valuable and very welcome. But in the end, as you say, "It isn't entirely your call", is it?

EDIT The above post was not intended as a personal attack but as a sharp difference of opinion.
We may disagree but there's no need to insult you. Truce, I hope.::)

Whitefire

Dec 12, 2008, 10:55 AM

We have been working on this for over a year now and have come to a pretty wide consensus on the need to depict the historical importance of Islam on Europe esp. in learning, science, maths, medicine, technology etc. and you can dismiss it all with a couple of throwaway lines that do nothing but reveal your euro-centric narrow-mindedness and lack of understanding of European history. Fortunately you'll find very few people on this project who share your view. Your contributions remain valuable and very welcome. But in the end, as you say, "It isn't entirely your call", is it?

Well, I didn't include a drop-in point like Christianity or The Great Schism because you already have one for the Arabs later on with the tree. I didn't want to futz with something that you already dealt with. Also, I don't see a large Arab influence in the existing tree (regarding theme, not actual advancement).

That said, if you want to, we can do something akin to Europa Europa (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144971). I don't know if he did invisible pre-reqs, but I think what we can do is place a line of code on top of the tech tree XML that is akin to: "If n-nvx, then tech tree 1; if p-pvx then tech tree two" where N and P represent the team numbers of Christian and Arabic nations, respectively.

Then, we can build an early tech tree for the Arabs (say 30 techs) and equate it in beaker value to a beginning chunk of Christian techs. I think we can all agree that after about 1200 there arose a close technological parity, so we can just dump the same tree after that. If you want to think about theme, you can change the text for the late techs to something more Arabic and leave the effects intact. Which is easy for anyone to do since you just type in Word, spell check, then copy paste into the appropriate spot.

But, like I said, lots of work.

jessiecat

Dec 12, 2008, 11:24 AM

Well, I didn't include a drop-in point like Christianity or The Great Schism because you already have one for the Arabs later on with the tree. I didn't want to futz with something that you already dealt with. Also, I don't see a large Arab influence in the existing tree (regarding theme, not actual advancement).

That said, if you want to, we can do something akin to Europa Europa (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144971). I don't know if he did invisible pre-reqs, but I think what we can do is place a line of code on top of the tech tree XML that is akin to: "If n-nvx, then tech tree 1; if p-pvx then tech tree two" where N and P represent the team numbers of Christian and Arabic nations, respectively.

Then, we can build an early tech tree for the Arabs (say 30 techs) and equate it in beaker value to a beginning chunk of Christian techs. I think we can all agree that after about 1200 there arose a close technological parity, so we can just dump the same tree after that. If you want to think about theme, you can change the text for the late techs to something more Arabic and leave the effects intact. Which is easy for anyone to do since you just type in Word, spell check, then copy paste into the appropriate spot.

But, like I said, lots of work.

Thanks for your reply. I wasn't really thinking of another completely separate but parallel tech tree. More like a branch which is initiated by Theology where we have it now.
So for the Christians it would go: Theology>.Christianity>>Great Schism>> etc.

The Muslim branch could then proceed something like this.
Theology>>Islam>>Monasticism>>Classical Knowledge and proceed parallel to the Christian one until it reaches Arabic Knowledge>>Arabic Medicine and then rejoins the main tree.

I wouldn't think it was necessary to add too many unique techs to the Arab branch except maybe some early knowledge of Indian and Chinese technologies in addition to Classical ones. My thinking is that the early Arab advantages came both from access to classical Greek and Roman sources gained through contacts with Christian and Jewish scholars in the Middle east but also their contact with India and China. Both sources of knowledge were not available in Europe until the 12thC due to suppression of pagan learning by the Roman Church though less so by the Orthodox Church. Which explains the obvious tech lead the Byzantines have with the rest of Europe of course.

I think I can come up with something fairly simple which can easily fit in with the early tech changes you propose (which I do largely support). I'll work on that in the morning and get back to you with a proposal tomorrow.:)

jessiecat

Dec 13, 2008, 01:05 AM

OK. I've come up with a revised early tech tree incorporating Whitefire's suggestions plus a possible Arabic mini tech thread which I have confined to one tech branch only to make it a lot easier to implement.

................................................/Cartography>>>Optics>>>Shipbuilding\
Calendar>>>Astrology>>>Astrolabe\........................................ .............\Astronomy
.................................................\ Lateen Sails>>>Clock Making>>>>>>>/

Bronze Casting>>>Engineering>>>Machinery>>>Blast Furnaces>>>Plate Armour
..............................\................... ....................\
...............................\>Chain Mail.................Steel Smelting
.................................................. ...(with Guilds -enables Heavy Swordsman 10/1)

Architecture>>>Artesian Wells (with Engineering)>>>Seige Engines (with Machinery)

.................................................. ....../Spinning Wheel>>>Guilds\
Manorialism>>>Vassalage>>>Feudalism>>>\.................................\Paper>>>Arabic Knowledge
.................................................. .......\Code of Laws>>>Banking/

............................................./Carolingian Renaissance>>>>>Vaulted>>>>>Gothic
.................../Byzantine Art>>>/...........................................Arches. ......Architecture
Theology>>>/.........................\The Great Schism
.................\
.................,\......................../>>>Music>>>Literature\
...................\Monasticism>>>/................................./Philosophy
..........................................\Classic al Knowledge>>>/
.................................................. .........................\Education

.................................................. ............................../Matchlock
Herbal Medicine>>>Fermentation>>>Alchemy>>>Gunpowder
.................................................. ..............................\Chemistry

Stirrups>>>>>>>>>Farriers>>>>>>>>>>Aristocracy>>>>>>>>>>Chivalry>>>>>>>>>Military Tactics
.....................(with Feudalism.............(with Chain Mail............(with Plate Armour
..................enables Light Cavalry).....enables Heavy Cavalry)..... enables Knights)

.................................................. .................................................. ....................................

The Arabs, Cordobans and Ottomans would use the same tech tree as all the other civs with the exception of the Theology thread as follows:

.................................../Eastern Knowledge>>>Art>>>Music>>Literature/>>>Philosophy
................................../.........\........................................ ..............\
Theology>>>Monasticism/...........\Steel Smelting....................................\>>>Education
.................................\........(with Blast Furnaces
..................................\... -enables Heavy Swordsman)
...................................\
....................................\>>>Classical >>>>>Arabic>>>>>Arabic Medicine>>>>Battlefield Medicine
........................................Knowledge. .....Knowledge
.................................................. .............\
.................................................. ..............\>>>Keyhole>>>>>Islamic>>>>>>>>>Advanced
.................................................. ....................Arches.......Architecture..... .....Irrigation Methods
.................................................. ....................(replaces Vaulted Arches
.................................................. ........................and Gothic Architecture)

Note This proposal also incorporates Whitefires idea of a strong attacking unit for the Late Middle Ages in introducing steel smelting and from it an enhanced Heavy Swordsman. This unit should be available a bit earlier for the Muslim civs because of their superior sword technology due to Damascus steel which was developed from earlier Indian steel smelting techniques. The Arab tech thread also acknowledges early Arab access to Greek and Roman Classical writings which led to later scientific advancements by Arabic scholars, particularly in Medicine which was not fully surpassed in Europe until the mid 19th.C. And advanced irrigation systems were developed much earlier by the Arabs, particularly in Andalusia, introducing a number of semi-tropical crops to Europe like coffee, tea, rice, dates, oranges, lemons, limes, apricots, pomegranates,aubergines, pineapples and melons.

jessiecat

Dec 13, 2008, 07:54 AM

I've also found some art that would be good for the European and Arabic versions of the Heavy Swordsman and for the Christian and Arabic versions of Whitefire's worker/peasant unit.

Whitefire

Dec 13, 2008, 11:54 AM

OK. I've come up with a revised early tech tree incorporating Whitefire's suggestions plus a possible Arabic mini tech thread which I have confined to one tech branch only to make it a lot easier to implement.

................................................/Cartography>>>Optics>>>Shipbuilding\
Calendar>>>Astrology>>>Astrolabe\........................................ .............\Astronomy
.................................................\ Lateen Sails>>>Clock Making>>>>>>>/

Bronze Casting>>>Engineering>>>Machinery>>>Blast Furnaces>>>Plate Armour
..............................\................... ....................\
...............................\>Chain Mail.................Steel Smelting
.................................................. ...(with Guilds -enables Heavy Swordsman 10/1)

Architecture>>>Artesian Wells (with Engineering)>>>Seige Engines (with Machinery)

.................................................. ....../Spinning Wheel>>>Guilds\
Manorialism>>>Vassalage>>>Feudalism>>>\.................................\Paper>>>Arabic Knowledge
.................................................. .......\Code of Laws>>>Banking/

............................................./Carolingian Renaissance>>>>>Vaulted>>>>>Gothic
.................../Byzantine Art>>>/...........................................Arches. ......Architecture
Theology>>>/.........................\The Great Schism
.................\
.................,\......................../>>>Music>>>Literature\
...................\Monasticism>>>/................................./Philosophy
..........................................\Classic al Knowledge>>>/
.................................................. .........................\Education

.................................................. ............................../Matchlock
Herbal Medicine>>>Fermentation>>>Alchemy>>>Gunpowder
.................................................. ..............................\Chemistry

Stirrups>>>>>>>>>Farriers>>>>>>>>>>Aristocracy>>>>>>>>>>Chivalry>>>>>>>>>Military Tactics
.....................(with Feudalism.............(with Chain Mail............(with Plate Armour
..................enables Light Cavalry).....enables Heavy Cavalry)..... enables Knights)

.................................................. .................................................. ....................................

The Arabs, Cordobans and Ottomans would use the same tech tree as all the other civs with the exception of the Theology thread as follows:

.................................../Eastern Knowledge>>>Art>>>Music>>Literature/>>>Philosophy
................................../.........\........................................ ..............\
Theology>>>Monasticism/...........\Steel Smelting....................................\>>>Education
.................................\........(with Blast Furnaces
..................................\... -enables Heavy Swordsman)
...................................\
....................................\>>>Classical >>>>>Arabic>>>>>Arabic Medicine>>>>Battlefield Medicine
........................................Knowledge. .....Knowledge
.................................................. .............\
.................................................. ..............\>>>Keyhole>>>>>Islamic>>>>>>>>>Advanced
.................................................. ....................Arches.......Architecture..... .....Irrigation Methods
.................................................. ....................(replaces Vaulted Arches
.................................................. ........................and Gothic Architecture)

Astrology: No objection to adding it, but what purpose does it serve? We don't need any more spacing on the naval branch. It's was already well designed, I just moved map trading up to a more logically named tech.

Why did you move Classical Knowledge from after Literature to after Monasticism?

Is Herbal Medicine a starting tech now (no pre-req)?

Why is Feudalism a pre-req for Spinning Wheels instead of Machinery?

Why is Farriers a pre-req for Aristocracy? Feudalism seems more logical.

I like the addition of steel.

By Keyhole I assume you mean Keystone.

Why do the Arabs get Battlefield Medicine and Advanced Irrigation Methods?

You missed the idea behind the Great Schism/Christianity/Qua'ran. I'll try to finish a revamp of the tree so you can install it and see what I mean.

3Miro

Dec 13, 2008, 09:19 PM

jessiecat

Dec 13, 2008, 09:36 PM

Astrology: No objection to adding it, but what purpose does it serve? We don't need any more spacing on the naval branch. It's was already well designed, I just moved map trading up to a more logically named tech.

Why did you move Classical Knowledge from after Literature to after Monasticism?

Is Herbal Medicine a starting tech now (no pre-req)?

Why is Feudalism a pre-req for Spinning Wheels instead of Machinery?

Why is Farriers a pre-req for Aristocracy? Feudalism seems more logical.

I like the addition of steel.

By Keyhole I assume you mean Keystone.

Why do the Arabs get Battlefield Medicine and Advanced Irrigation Methods?

You missed the idea behind the Great Schism/Christianity/Qua'ran. I'll try to finish a revamp of the tree so you can install it and see what I mean.

1. Drop Astrology if you like. Just a thought.

2. Again, not a problem. Leave Classical Knowledge where it is now for the Christian side at least. Historically, it really only became available to Christian Europe by translations from Arabic in the 12th.C anyway.

3. My error. Herbal Medicine requires Monasticism first. Although, to be fair, it could come before the
birth of Christianity in Europe. Either way works for me.

3. Spinning Wheel should need both Feudalism and Machinery so it doesn't become available too early in the tech tree IMO.

4. Sorry I didn't make the link clear. As the next Cavalry tech it should of course require Feudalism as well.

5. Agreed. Steel swords were an important Arab advantage before 1200AD. What about the idea of the Heavy Swordsman as the attacking Late Middle Ages unit you proposed?

6. No I mean Keyhole. Also known as the Moorish arch or Horseshoe Arch because of its shape.
(see pic below of the interior of the Great Mosque of Cordoba)

7. Everyone would be able to research Battlefield Medicine and Advanced Irrigation after they researched Arabic Knowledge. Did I not make that clear? Its just that the Arabs get access to it earlier for the reasons I described. An early Arab advantage in both techs is very appropriate historically.

8. I'll leave the Great Schism/ Christianity thing for you to work out. It really has no relevence to the proposed Arab tech path which only needs to start from Theology>Monasticism as I see it.

EDIT I've just realized (dumb me:crazyeye:) that the Muslim civs start with Arabic Knowledge as default anyway. So I've suggested a solution to avoid a separate tech branch in my post to 3Miro below. This would allow us to add a couple of techs leading from Arabic Knowledge and the problem is solved. Have a look below.

jessiecat

Dec 13, 2008, 11:28 PM

Are you guys rewriting the tech tree?

Different tech branches are kind I think. We can simply make it more generic. Christianity should not be a tech (at least not in the a mod starting 500AD). The Great Schism's official date is in 11th century, why would Byzantines start with it? We could try to represent a unified Christin world until around 10-11 century, but even then Byzantines and the Pope were not in best of terms for centuries earlier. I actually think the current model for the religions and techs is OK.

Swap techs if needed, add techs, but I don't see the need for completely different tech trees for Islamic and European civs. Were those two fundamentally that different? I think they both had pretty similar concepts (holy war = crusade/jihad, religious prosecutions (stronger for the Christians), and so on), just put general conceptual name on the tech tree. (BTW the change in the tech tree is more than XML issue, it would require significant C++ coding, which I will not be able to do until some time in January).

Good point about the Great Schism. I hadn't really thought of it coming as late as that, but you're right. Whitefire feels we have to represent the split between Catholicism and Orthodoxy somehow. Maybe so, but I'm OK with the way we've got it now. I'm happy either way.

However I think we do have to represent the difference between the Muslim and Christian civs in one important aspect. The Arabs had access to knowledge of the Greeks, Romans, Indians and Chinese. And their religion encouraged knowledge and scientific investgation. Most European civs lost contact with the rest of the world and Classical knowledge during the Dark Ages and the Catholic Church expressly forbad enquiry into any earlier sources which they regarded as pagan. It was not until the 12th.C that scholars dared to investigate the works of Aristotle, Euclid, etc which they could only get from Arab translations. This helped quick-start the Renaissance and helped Europe recover from being so massively behind the Muslims in science, medicine and technology.

But I'm not suggesting totally different tech trees at all. Just a short diversion in one branch only which allows the Muslim civs to gain Steel Smelting, Arabic Knowledge, Arabic Medicine, etc. before the others. It would be pretty silly if the other civs could research Arabic Knowledge etc. before the Arabs could get it, wouldn't it? They would then rejoin the main tree at Art>>>Music>>>Literature etc. And the Christian civs could gain all the same knowledge once they researched Arabic Knowledge.
Just one small, short diversion in one tech branch only, not a completely separate tech tree.

EDIT There may be an alternative which accomplishs the same end without a separate tech path. I've only noticed this while playing as Cordoba today. Obviously I forgot that the Muslim civs start with Arabic Knowledge as default. Right? In order for them to research Arabic Medicine (which requires Chemistry) they have to beeline through at least 12 techs to get there. What if we made Arabic Medicine only require Arabic Knowledge plus Alchemy (just 4-5 techs to research)? Then they would have it early while the other civs would still need to tech to Arabic Knowledge first. A much easier solution and historically accurate as well. If only I'd thought of it earlier.:crazyeye:

3Miro

Dec 14, 2008, 11:02 AM

jessiecat

Dec 14, 2008, 11:12 AM

This is an idea:

Add some cheap techs after the somewhat later and more expensive Arabic Knowledge. Arabs (and Cordobans) would be able to get to the cheap techs early on (since thet start with AK), and Euro civs would have to reach AK first. That way the tech level of Arabs and Euros would be different from in the beginning but not the end.

OK. Sorry about wasting everbody's time on this. If I'd realised from the start that the Arabs and Cordobans got AK by default I wouldn't have had any issue about it. (kinda embarrassing really. gulp!). I'll do what you suggest.

jessiecat

Dec 14, 2008, 03:23 PM

@3Miro. As per your suggestion above, I'd like to propose this.

.................................................. ..../Steel Smelting......................................\
........................./Eastern................../(with Blast Furnace -enables.....................\
......................../Knowledge>>>>>>>>\ Elite Swordsman 10/1(Shock prom.)............\
......................./...............................\and "The Tomb of Khalid ibn al Walid" WW.....\
....................../.................................\................ ............................................\
...................../...................................\Advanced Mathematics(+2 Science)..............\
..................../.....................................\ ...enables Academy ..................................\
Arabic Knowledge.....................................(rep laces Laboratory)............starts a Golden Age and
....................\............................. .............................................allow s "The Alhambra Palace" WW
.................................................. .................................................. ..................../
......................\........................... ..../Agricultural Revolution(+1 food, +1 commerce)../
........................\......................... .../enables "Noria" advanced water mill................./
..........................\Arabic................. ./and "The Gardens of Al Andalus" WW................/
...........................\Science>>>>>>>>\................................................. ............../
.................................................. ....\............................................. .............../
.................................................. ......\Arabic Medicine(+1 health, +1 happiness).../
.................................................. .......\enables Public Hospital........................../

I would also suggest for the Muslim civs renaming Vaulted Arches and Gothic Architecture as,
"Horseshoe Arches" and "Islamic Architecture".

st.lucifer

Dec 14, 2008, 07:04 PM

jessiecat

Dec 14, 2008, 09:56 PM

Wait, what's this about a golden age? Do other technologies grant these? Are they available to non-Muslim civs?

Why would discovering a technology lead to a GA? We have a wonder that has this same effect, and it's not that difficult to get a GA with great people.

Where does the +2 science come in? +2 science to what?

What gets the +1 commerce and +1 food bonus?

Is Arabic Medicine a future tech, as it has the same benefit as Industrial Revolution techs? Are ALL of these future techs? Why would you give the Muslim civs all of these extra benefits, which are unavailable to other civs?

I'm not trying to be insulting, but this is completely inappropriate. If we need a separate tech tree for Muslim civs, that's fine, and maybe it's worth looking into creating one. But any separate tech tree, or revision of the existing tech tree, cannot unfairly confer benefits on one civ or set of civs over another.

Isn't it enough that the Muslim civs start with a tech lead, have strong UU's, a disproportionate number of wonders, an uncontested holy city, few natural enemies, and room to expand?

For a start. I was only doing what 3Miro asked me to do in the previous post.

Which is to come up with a few techs to follow Arabic Knowledge which all other civs would get when they researched AK. The Muslim civs would just get them earlier.

The Golden Age is just a proposal. Drop it if its not appropriate.

The benefits of the techs again are just a suggestion. Put whatever effects you like on them. Or none.

Arabic Medicine is not a future tech. It's in the tech tree already and becomes available after Arabic Knowledge which comes after Chemistry. Which is required for any civ that wants to research Medicine. (Please re-read the tech tree.) And is available to any civ once they research AK. So how is it any more of a future tech than Scientific Method, Physics or Steam Engines which also come after Chemistry?
Again. Its not a separate tech tree. Its not a revision of the tech tree but an addition of several techs which are available to all civs. Exactly the same as Whitefire's proposed additions to the tech tree, which I completely support. As you support as well AFAIK.

I don't intend to respond to your last comments which may be inaccurate and intemperate because I think you have completely misunderstood what 3Miro has asked for, which I have provided a proposal for.
Perhaps you'd like to re-read 3Miro's post (no.324) and think again:)

st.lucifer

Dec 14, 2008, 11:11 PM

For a start. I was only doing what 3Miro asked me to do in the previous post.

Which is to come up with a few techs to follow Arabic Knowledge which all other civs would get when they researched AK. The Muslim civs would just get them earlier.

Sure, and I have no problem with this in principle. It's not the names of the techs or the fact that they exist that bothers me. It's the effects, which are unlike any non-future tech available.

The Golden Age is just a proposal. Drop it if its not appropriate.

The benefits of the techs again are just a suggestion. Put whatever effects you like on them. Or none.

Do we have this type of effect for other techs? We have techs that incur benefits - workers build improvements 50% faster, road movement increases by 50%/turn, etc (actually, we don't have that second one in, and we should put it somewhere).

I don't have a problem with techs that have bonuses attached. I do have a problem with every tech in the proposed revamp of this section of the tree conferring a large bonus, particularly when that section is available primarily to one small subset of civs, which you seem intent on building this mod specifically for. It is difficult for me to evaluate this proposal independently from other proposals you have made which elevate Cordoba over the other civs in the mod, when that would be the effect of this most recent proposal.

Arabic Medicine is not a future tech. It's in the tech tree already and becomes available after Arabic Knowledge which comes after Chemistry. Which is required for any civ that wants to research Medicine. (Please re-read the tech tree.) And is available to any civ once they research AK. So how is it any more of a future tech than Scientific Method, Physics or Steam Engines which also come after Chemistry?
Again. Its not a separate tech tree. Its not a revision of the tech tree but an addition of several techs which are available to all civs. Exactly the same as Whitefire's proposed additions to the tech tree, which I completely support. As you support as well AFAIK.

My question about Arabic Medicine being a future tech was rhetorical, in that it grants the same bonus as a future tech, despite being far earlier in the tech tree. Obviously, it is not a future tech, as other techs come after it. My question was intended to illustrate the inappropriate nature of putting a future tech bonus on a mid-game technology.

I don't intend to respond to your last comments which may be accurate and intemperate because I think you have completely misunderstood what 3Miro has asked for, which I have provided a proposal for.
Perhaps you'd like to re-read 3Miro's post (no.324) and think again:)

I had 3Miro's post open when I wrote my initial post. Please re-read my statement again - 'But any separate tech tree,' (which this is not) 'or revision of the existing tech tree, cannot unfairly confer benefits on one set of civs over another.'

Which, again, is exactly my point. Is there anything else in the tech tree that looks like this set of techs?

We have six proposed techs here stemming from Arabic Knowledge. Two of them have no function, except to act as prerequisites for later techs.
Of those later techs, the first makes available a world wonder and an extremely powerful foot unit with a built-in promotion.
The second makes available a powerful research-boosting building, AND somehow confers +2 science on the civ. +2 science in what sense of the term? +2 per city? Per building? Per specialist? Per turn? Do we have any other techs that do anything like this? (no.)
The third tech enables an 'advanced water mill'; presumably this is an upgrade to the terrain improvement granting 1 extra food and 1 extra commerce, where entire civics grant only half of that per specific improvement, usually with a significant penalty attached. Additionally, this tech makes another significant world wonder available.
The fourth tech has the same bonus effect as reaching future tech 1, despite coming far earlier in the tech tree. It also enables a building which presumably provides another significant health bonus.
And to top it off, the lucky player who finishes researching all of these techs gets a golden age!

Again, do we have any series of techs in the game that confer this type of power? No, for good reason! The civ who researches Arabic Knowledge first is much like the civ who beats everyone to Assembly Line or Liberalism in standard RFC - no matter which subsequent tech they pick, they'll have a significant advantage over all of the others. If this tech was available to everyone at roughly the same time, that might be ok - but it isn't.

Once again, I am not trying to insult you. I am glad that you are making proposals to improve the mod, and you were asked to do this - this isn't an unsolicited suggestion to add flying Bohemian machine-gunners. Still, it's really hard to look at this and not see your strong interest in Muslim Iberia shining through. I defer to your expertise on that particular field of history, and it's a good thing for the mod that you are well versed in it. The benefits conferred by these techs may be historically appropriate - certainly, there's grounds for argument there. The problem that we keep running into here is that this elevates one small part of the mod over all others, in a way that unbalances things badly. I'm trying to stay away from the subjects I know the most about, to avoid introducing my biases into the thing - if design of the mod were based on my area of historical expertise, the crowning achievements would be the rich and detailed Crusader states and Mongol invasions.

But that's not what we're trying to accomplish. We're trying to make a worthy version of RFC centered on Europe from the collapse of the Western Roman Empire to the Industrial Revolution. We've all got our biases and they'll be reflected in the final product, but we need to do our best to keep their influence to a minimum.

civmademepoor

Dec 14, 2008, 11:23 PM

Sorry to quibble, but shouldn't it be "Islamic Knowledge" & "Islamic Medicine" (or perhaps something else, maybe Eastern?) since we're referring to Islamic civilization and not exclusively Arab civilization. Also, I thing Arabic only refers to the language, Arab would be a better choice if we decide to stick with it.

civmademepoor

Dec 14, 2008, 11:27 PM

Please also add flying bohemian machine gunners, at least for the graphics. Funny, not too far a leap from winged hussars.

jessiecat

Dec 15, 2008, 12:12 AM

jessiecat

Dec 15, 2008, 12:22 AM

Please also add flying bohemian machine gunners, at least for the graphics. Funny, not too far a leap from winged hussars.

Your point about Islamic vs. Arabic is well-taken.

BTW Did you ever play Civ2 Fantastic Worlds? My vote goes to the dinosaur barbs.
Or maybe Captain Nemo and the Nautilus?:lol:

st.lucifer

Dec 15, 2008, 12:25 AM

@st. lucifer. I understand your point about avoiding personal biases in this and admit I haven't been vigilant enough in putting mine aside. I concede your point.

My response to your points are these. In responding to 3Miros suggestion, I have tried to add a handful of techs which reflect an early Islamic lead in some areas but which become available to all civs in the mod.
Please don't take my suggestion of their effects or benefits as anything more than rough guideline. I leave the strength of those for the rest of you to decide as you are more qualified to judge their affect on gameplay/balance etc.
While I would like to retain the proposed techs for the reason of flavour and historical accuracy I am more than happy for others to judge the precise research rate for each one so they align more closely to the very end of the tech tree.
For example we already require Arabic Medicine and other techs to research Medicine, which only becomes available very close to the end of the game (which is appropriate). Along with minimizing their actual benefits could we not code in long tech rates so these other techs also can only be researched late in the game as well?

As for the wonders I've proposed which are specifically Arabic, we don't actually have any yet. Just proposals. I associated these 3 only with the proposed techs only because they seemed appropriate and flavourful. If we wish to make them available at some point earlier, that's fine with me too.
The one point I'd like to make in closing is about the Elite Swordsman which is enabled by Steel Smelting. A similiar late Middle Ages attacking unit was suggested by Whitefire. Could we not make steel-smelting available for all civs with the Muslim civs getting it a little earlier (200years historically) so they it was an available unit to all civs at some point?

In general, I only offer a rough guideline. I'm happy with whatever way people want to use it.
Or not, as the case may be.:)

I have no objections to anything you've said here.

Let's see if we can rework the techs so the benefits are more reasonable. Perhaps we can move some things (the wonders?) to the bridge techs, which currently have no function assigned.

Have steel smelting reveal coal, give a +10% bonus to the existing production bonus for forge, and enable the elite swordsman unit (which we should rename). Then make that tech damned expensive. :)

Consider doing similar things for the other proposed techs. I like the idea of having Agricultural Revolution improve the function of the watermill, although we might want to limit it to one bonus rather than two. I'd also suggest renaming it - 'agricultural revolution' could refer to any of a number of innovations, and has been used to describe many periods of history.

Again, I appreciate the work, and I'm not trying to attack anyone personally. Thanks for being flexible.