Encouraging Tech Diversity

Problem: Curently units, infrastructural improvements, terrain enhancements, wonders, and governments require only one technology advance. Also, it is quite easy in some eras to beeline down one side of the tree and be okay. Here is an idea that would make it viable to still have one giant tech tree, but encourage even developement in exception of certain circumstances.

Concept: My concept is that all those things I mentioned above should require two or more prequesite techs to build, preferably from different branches of the tech trees. There would also be one or two tech simple alternatives that were not as good as the fully developed alternatives. A third benefit of the system is making current units better when more technology is developed.

Examples:
Warrior Code is something that should be train any professional soldiers. Without it there is no real concept of an organized, well-trained military for your civ. You would be stuck using Peasant Warriors(0/1/1), rather than Warriors(1/1/1). You would have to use Peasant Archers(1/1/1)(1/0/1), you get the idea. You would also not be able to build certain units such as Swordsmen or Chariots or Galleys without having a Warrior Code.

Before you could build a Courthouse, you would need Polytheism and Code of Laws. With Construction as well you could build a County Courthouse, which would have double the corruption reducing effect.

Chariots(1/1/2)(Wheeled) would require Bronze Working, The Wheel, Warrior Code, and Horses. With Iron you could build Armoured Chariots(1/2/2)(Wheeled), not realistic but makes for a good gameplay balance. In a Monarchy you would have Royal Chariots(1/1/2)(Wheeled)(+1HP). With both a Monarchy and Iron you could build Royal Armoured Chariots(1/2/2)(Wheeled)(+1HP).

To have a Monarchy you need Monarchy, Code of Laws, Currency. With Literature corruption and flip chance would be reduced.

Some ideas I have. Please add your own, especially for the rest of the tech tree.

i believe this idea will almost certainly be added to civ4, it would fix the carriers before planes problem too

ybbor said:

i believe this idea will almost certainly be added to civ4, it would fix the carriers before planes problem too

Click to expand...

Good call. I didn't even think about the possiblity it could solve certain 'logical evolution' lapses that may occur in a single tech tree or that occur now. Exellent observation.

This could be more simply implemented by having a later tech called whatever.

Instead of saying that aircraft carriers unit require the techs flight and amphibious warfare (or whatever), the aircraft carrier unit requires the carrier warfare tech. That tech would then require the techs flight and amphibious warfare (or whatever).

I'm not quite clear why you think courthouses should require polytheism though. Code of law in itself seems to be the epitome of the necessary ideas.

Similarly monarchy. Historically, it was monarchs that made currency possible, not the other way round.

The logical lapses in unit evolution are a result of a poorly designed tech tree shoehorned into 4 screens worth of gui (ie eras aka ages), not an intrinsic flaw in the each unit requires exactly one tech requirement.

Your idea suond very well and adds to realism, imo. When a technology is researched in real life you dont have always a new military unit or a new building thereafter, but you find ways of implementing the tech to improve existing units (or buildings) gradually. The system you describe would add to realism, it will on the other hand lead to a more complicated tech system which could lead to confusion.

On one hand, I like this idea, because it does seem a shade more realistic in some cases.

On the other hand, I'm not a fan of it because it basically forces everyone to approach the tech tree the same way. Bee-lining is something that lets one nation be radically different from another. If anything, I'd love to see more bee-lining, with fewer opportunities to go back and diversify your tech tree, even through trade.

The idea being that someone chooses to beeline for a military tech, and foregoes many democratizing forces... so his nation is socially "backwards", partially because he has such a consolidated power base from such a strong military.

Or someone democratizes first, slowing down their military progress, but making his society more happy and free, and thus progressive.

I say more beelines

Does anyone here know Master of Orion2 ? When researching a tech you had too choose which branch you actually want. This means that (just as an example) you had to choose when researching Feudalism if you want Pikes, MDI or the Government. Some key techs (like rails ) would not have branches, but you have to choose if you want to strenghten your military or, improve cities, happiness...
Although in MoO2 you could not exchange the sub-techs (with race customisation you could research all branches or have no choice at all).

MOO2 research was bloody awful. There was a "best" choice in each layer, so that's the one that always got picked.

What's the point of that?


- Sirian

I know that there was a best pick and tech was poorly balanced, but it is one way to get tech diversity. Balancing the profits of the branches would not allow an always best pick but a pick which fits your playstyle most.

I think that's a defeatist attitude. I see it a lot on these forums, actually.

Someone sees a one-dimensional aspect of the game and decides to add a new choice to that concept. Then someone else says "adding that choice won't be that helpful anyway, since one choice will always be better" as if that's an excuse for having only one choice.

I think they can introduce a choice AND balance it. And even if it's slightly unbalanced, it could lay a foundation for future sequals to get it right. If there's a will, there's a way, you just have to be flexible.

Multiple tech branches that lead you down similar techs but in different orders (e.g.: a more democratic and natural path, versus a militaristic and repressive path that postpones social progress) would give the game a lot more depth.

The problem isn't that one choice will always be better, but that in the vast majority o cases, there is almost no situation in which a civilisation developed one and not the other. The only historical points where I can think of where a civ did choose only one expression of a tech concept is longbows vs crossbows.

MoO2 had a terrible idea. Why were my people so stupid that they could get the idea of missile dfences or automated factories, but not both? It just didn't make any sense from a realism point of view.

I think you're talking specifically about technology, though. In reality, yes, most Civs can figure out one, and then figure out another.

But socially, having certain techs too soon can have different social effects on the Civilization.

For example, China invented advanced techniques for bronze working very early on. These huge bronze pots that weighed dozens if not hundreds of tons were unlike the pyramids in that they were done quite regularly. In order to put these pots together, it required highly coordinated systems of labor, with hundreds of workers working on the same project, and pumping out pot after pot quite quickly.

What this meant was the early emergence of a beurocracy in China, and a greater need for hierarchy. And that is reflected in the way China developed for hundreds of years afterwards.

Compare that to Europe, the land was quite fertile and thus did not need complex systems of regulation in order for farm. It is no surprise that the ideology that came out of Europe reflected more individualism.

Not to say that we should pigeonhole European or Asian civilizations into one path or another...

But let me give one more example. In the middle ages, when Kings ruled, sometimes with an iron fist, there was very little idea of democracy. Some nations developed artillery sooner, and this allowed Kings to maintain their grip on power, since no insurgents could ever compete with their military might. Other nations, however, democratized sooner: they could go toe to toe with the King and win.

The lesson to be learned: militarizing sooner may make you stronger and cement stronger systems of control... but democratization and social progress often rely on a more level playing field, where the lowest class feels more control over their own fate, more faith, more hope, more desire to advance themselves.

But nah, developing nuclear weapons never made it impossible to develop genetics. That's just silly, I agree.

dh_epic said:

I think you're talking specifically about technology, though. In reality, yes, most Civs can figure out one, and then figure out another.

Click to expand...

I'm thnking ore about the applications than the techs. Suppose you discover teh steam engine tech. Why should you be able to apply this to making railways but not ironclads (or vice versa)? The basic moo2 tech paradigm doesn't make sense.

But socially, having certain techs too soon can have different social effects on the Civilization.

...

What this meant was the early emergence of a beurocracy in China, and a greater need for hierarchy. And that is reflected in the way China developed for hundreds of years afterwards.

Compare that to Europe, the land was quite fertile and thus did not need complex systems of regulation in order for farm. It is no surprise that the ideology that came out of Europe reflected more individualism.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is the other way round. China, with its rice crop, could have relatively fewer workers dedicated to agriculture compared to Europe with wheat (and northern Europe with its heavy clay soils had to wait until the horse plough and about 1000 ad for meaningful levels of agriculture).

The higher roductivity in China's fields meant higher population densities were possible, and it is that population density which necessitated the bureaucracy.

Not to say that we should pigeonhole European or Asian civilizations into one path or another...

But let me give one more example. In the middle ages, when Kings ruled, sometimes with an iron fist, there was very little idea of democracy. Some nations developed artillery sooner, and this allowed Kings to maintain their grip on power, since no insurgents could ever compete with their military might. Other nations, however, democratized sooner: they could go toe to toe with the King and win.

The lesson to be learned: militarizing sooner may make you stronger and cement stronger systems of control... but democratization and social progress often rely on a more level playing field, where the lowest class feels more control over their own fate, more faith, more hope, more desire to advance themselves.

Click to expand...

What I think may be a good idea is that researching related techs may make other techs in teh same general field easier. I don't just mean in the boolean X+Y is needed for Z, but rather that, say, each tech is assigned to a particular trait (the civ traits from civ3 will do). ie navigation, map making, and naval cannon would be assigned to the seafaring trait.

Then, when researching your next seafaring trait, the number of beakers you produce is multiplied by ( 1 + (related trait techs / 20) ). This way, even though the tech isn't required, because it is in a preferred field, it gets easier to research.

This could be expanded further, with the civ traits the player starts with counting as an additional boost when researching related techs.

This model would give the same effect (militarise soon = relatively slower advances in other areas) without imposing an artificial limit preventing you from researching an obvious application of the tech. It also expands it beyond teh military/democracy dichotomy, making for a richer game overall.

rhialto said:

Actually, it is the other way round. China, with its rice crop, could have relatively fewer workers dedicated to agriculture compared to Europe with wheat (and northern Europe with its heavy clay soils had to wait until the horse plough and about 1000 ad for meaningful levels of agriculture).

The higher roductivity in China's fields meant higher population densities were possible, and it is that population density which necessitated the bureaucracy.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. Chinese did not start growing rice until they started colonising the area below the Yangtze river. Before then they grew similar grain crops as in Europe. In fact in the past (not so much nowadays) people in China would say that southerners ate rice and northerners ate buns and noodles. The famous Han dynasty historian Sima Qian makes this comment about the differences between north and south.

" ... in the territories of Chu and Yue, land was broad and the population sparse. For their food they had rice, and for their soup they had fish. Some of them tilled with fire and weeded with water, and the fruit and shellfish were sufficient without need to purchase them in markets. The land is by nature abundant with things to eat, and there is no danger of famine or death. For this reason, even those who are weak or ill can manage to survive, there is no occasion to store up goods, and many of the people remain poor.

Thus, south of the Yangzi and the Huai, there are no people cold or hungry, but there are also no families with as much as a thousand catties of gold.

North of the Yi and the Si, [on the other hand,] the conditions are suitable for the five grains, for the mulberry and the hemp, and for the six kinds of domestic animals. The territory, [however,] is not large, the people are numerous, and they often suffer from flood or from drought. [So] they are interested in hoarding things and storing them."

Personally though I think that mass organisation occurred far before the making of bronze tripods. It at least dates back to wide-scale organised irrigation (and depending on your POV before then) and those pots come way after that (in the Shang dynasty).

Maybe there should be a tech for irrigation?

Let me guess. That historian lived to the north of said river?

Historians are wonderful things, but when it comes to the relative productivity of various grains, I prefer to listen to agronomists. They are far too talented at denigrating the achievements of their rival contemporaries.

The reality is it was always easier to farm in Europe, enough that it could happen within a household mode of production. In other parts of the world, the mode of production needed more highly coordinated systems of labor. This is talking specifically about the distant BC.

Well, here is another example. There was a nationalist movement in the Arab world that never materialized. There was a common thread that some poets and philosophers tried to express, but it never transcended the individual city states and the interests they put ahead of a larger movement, which is why the whole region can some so hostile and tense, even now.

Compare that to America, on the other hand, and you'll find a common thread was quickly found among all these seperate colonies. There is a language of American Nationalism: words like "liberty" and "equality". Expressions like "land of the free" or "the land of opportunity". The American Myth, that anyone can make it. Sure these are all cliche, like "okay, I can find most of those in the national anthem or the constitution". But let's look at popular culture, with the number of old songs about the Mississippi (or just "the river"), like it is somehow the artery holding the lifeforce of America. The number of songs that talk about a struggle to make it, and how success came from working hard and sacrificing to overcome poverty. These ideas just transmitted so much more effectively, and while they were important hundreds of years ago, are still relevent now.

There were obvious foreign influences, no doubt, in preventing the Arab world from becoming "The United States of Arabia". Colonialism is one said foreign factor. But there are domestic factors as well.

Really, it comes down to this: the many Arab nations were each ruled by a different despot... and with the interests of their regime put before the interests of "their people", a dude in Egypt could only do so much for the people of Syria before they can say "enh, who cares."

In America, on the other hand, the powers that be had much less control, and the people had more power over their destiny. And if enough people in New York could be convinced that they had something in common with people from Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and Carolina, you could start to have a sense of National identity. And a lot of that had to do with the power and wealth the average American had compared to the power and wealth the average "Arab" had (if we can even use that word, since American is a more well defined concept).

For this example:

A middle class, not chained by centralized rulers, could begin to define American Nationalism.
The more centralized, powerful government prevented nationalism in the Arab world.

In a larger sense, there is an idea that for scientific development (physics, chemistry, biology, engineering) the sky is the limit, and anyone can discover anything.

But social progress is a harder thing to make happen. You can't have your scientists working around the clock to figure out Nationalism and forge a National Identity from a bunch of smaller states. I'd even go so far as to say that the most powerful scientists in the world can't make a nation understand democracy in the deep way required to pursue it.

It would just be kind of neat to be forced to make these kinds of decisions. Make your government more powerful and keep your people ignorant and poor, or relinquish power, make your regime more vulnerable, but increase prosperity and knowledge within your people. One way to do this would be the tech tree.

dh_epic said:

The reality is it was always easier to farm in Europe, enough that it could happen within a household mode of production. In other parts of the world, the mode of production needed more highly coordinated systems of labor. This is talking specifically about the distant BC.

Click to expand...

That'll be why that couple down the road from me grows rice in their paddy fields without any help from outside their family then.

But that is all an aside.

I think you're talking specifically about technology, though. In reality, yes, most Civs can figure out one, and then figure out another.

Click to expand...

I'm thnking ore about the applications than the techs. Suppose you discover teh steam engine tech. Why should you be able to apply this to making railways but not ironclads (or vice versa)? The basic moo2 tech paradigm doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

What do you think about my main point?

I'm not familiar with MOO2 and some of the other strategy games, but you're right, tech didn't work that way. Generally speaking, if you discover nuclear technology, you should have the knowhow to build an energy source and a weapon -- Iran is showing us that fine line right now.

I think the idea of making certain techs easier to research based on traits is interesting, but not what I'm going for. I'd like to see less hard-wired concepts in Civ, and more concepts that are opened up depending on the choices you make. Not that I'm against this idea, though, because it's a good one.

While I do not think the MOO2 system was realistic, the Miniaturization concept was very important. For those not familiar, miniaturization meant the farther you got in certain fields, the cheaper the products of those fields became. This would eventually lead to a snowball effect in Civ, but would encourage snowballs in specific fields, discouraging going levle the entire time.

BTW, you could and pretty much had to trade for the other sub-techs in MOO2.

I think the miniaturasation effect from moo2 is adequately modelled by the growing economy and effciency multipliers like factories in civ2, and teh fact that the newest units are more expensive. Making an already obsolete unit even cheaper doesnt really encourage the ai to act realistically anyway.