Eras in civilization 7

Neolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age is kind of okay; but what is classical age?
In Mesoamerica history we do have pre-classical and pos classical age in reference of after and before Teotihuacán; being the classical period the time of Teotihuacán and it's happen before an Iron Age.

If I'm playing with Aztec it should have an Obsidian age.

Rather than being based on civilizations, I think it should be based on geographically available resources. The Aztecs and the Near East have known an Obsidian Age because there were available deposits in their regions. India didn't because there hardly was any really important deposit.

Probably that is the limit with a tech tree exclusively relying on earlier developed technologies. In a Civ game, I can develop "bronze working" even if I have no copper deposit around and I wouldn't actually make any use of that technology. And that is usually a prerequesite to later develop "iron working". Maybe that could be done differently. Maybe we could have a bonus to develop faster technologies about resources which are available in the surrounding and a malus if it's not the case, I don't really know. Ultimately in the game, your effective "technological eras" as a player will depend on the resources you actually use. And if you play the same civilization on a different map, then they will be different.
 
Now if your point is that the tech tree should be less certain, adding more random to it, for instance with a system of probabilities determining which of next technologies would be proposed, then that breaks another Civ game principle which is perfect information. I've seen Sid Meier in a conference telling that was already tested out with Civ1, and it didn't work. The game relies heavily on forward-thinking, trying to reach some objectives, that is why you can't resist playing "one-more turn" to see how it will go. If the player does everything to get gunpowder, and gunpowder wouldn't be proposed nonetheless, then all the player's plans are falling apart and it could be potentially game-breaking for him.
IIRC, Civ2 had a spin on that idea. It had/has a single tech tree for all civ factions to progress through. But once you finished learning a tech, you could choose among N possible techs to research next. N depended a bit on where you were in the tree, which prerequisites you had fulfilled, and so on. I remember N being about 4 or 5. But the key feature was that you wouldn't see *all* of the possible techs to research next; it was a subset. Civ2 had no "shift click" to queue up the techs that you wanted to research, in order. @Patine is a big Civ2 fan, so they can elaborate. One couldn't predict which random grouping of potential techs would come up, so skipping one meant it may or may not appear the next time.

Civ3 moved away from that idea, allowing one to set up a research order on the tech tree page with shift click. Planning one's research order was supported in Civ4, Civ5, BERT, and Civ6. I don't know how that Civ2 feature was regarded by the fans at the time.
 
My point was more that we *shouldn't* use the archaeological (so-called "technological") ages, simply. Despite their ubiquitous misuse by amateurs, they are in practice an extremely narrow concept that aims only to categorize prehistoric archaeology (and only really works properly for a couple world region). They essentially lose their actual utility somewhere in the Ancient era, the very early Classical at most, and would only really serve as a way to divide the first era of the game.

Moreover, from a game perspective, they are incredibly narrow, since progress through these three stages (and further single-tech ages) relies on a single lynchpin tech: you either have bronze working or you don't. You either have iron working or you don't. Even the Industrial Age is not that limited as while Steam power is iconic, there were several other factors that went into making the industrial revolution, and not all of them were directly linked to steam.

The historiographical ages (which somehow tend to find their way into most proposed "technological ages" systems because otherwise the iron age is entirely too long) are just more suited to subdividing history, and allow for greatly lessened historical determinism by making for more flexible age progress requirement) is just a better classification in every way.
 
Last edited:
My point was more that we *shouldn't* use the archaeological (so-called "technological") ages, simply. Despite their ubiquitous misuse by amateurs, they are in practice an extremely narrow concept that aims only to categorize prehistoric archaeology (and only really works properly for a couple world region). They essentially lose their actual utility somewhere in the Ancient era, the very early Classical at most, and would only really serve as a way to divide the first era of the game.

Moreover, from a game perspective, they are incredibly narrow, since progress through these three stages (and further single-tech ages) relies on a single lynchpin tech: you either have bronze working or you don't. You either have iron working or you don't. Even the Industrial Age is not that limited as while Steam power is iconic, there were several other factors that went into making the industrial revolution, and not all of them were directly linked to steam.

The historiographical ages (which somehow tend to find their way into most proposed "technological ages" systems because otherwise the iron age is entirely too long) are just more suited to subdividing history, and allow for greatly lessened historical determinism by making for more flexible age progress requirement) is just a better classification in every way.
I see what you mean and I agree. If we think about "eras" in esthetic and atmospheric terms, that is very certainly the best way to go.

I'm very biased by the fact I've been thinking a lot recently about how early civilizations developped, particularly in regards to trade. This lead me to think we should be able to develop in different ways depending of the resources available. But I agree, that's a totally different perspective, loosely related to the question. The problem isn't even technological at this point, it's resource-based.
 
IIRC, Civ2 had a spin on that idea. It had/has a single tech tree for all civ factions to progress through. But once you finished learning a tech, you could choose among N possible techs to research next. N depended a bit on where you were in the tree, which prerequisites you had fulfilled, and so on. I remember N being about 4 or 5. But the key feature was that you wouldn't see *all* of the possible techs to research next; it was a subset. Civ2 had no "shift click" to queue up the techs that you wanted to research, in order. @Patine is a big Civ2 fan, so they can elaborate. One couldn't predict which random grouping of potential techs would come up, so skipping one meant it may or may not appear the next time.

Civ3 moved away from that idea, allowing one to set up a research order on the tech tree page with shift click. Planning one's research order was supported in Civ4, Civ5, BERT, and Civ6. I don't know how that Civ2 feature was regarded by the fans at the time.

civ 2 tech tree
I distinctly remember having a "goal" button in civ 2, from the research menu you click "goal" and the game would list every tech in the game, you'd select the one you wanted and the game would automatically beeline you to it. I don't remember an N feature but I was 9-15 back when I was playing civ2 so may not have understood the concept...
 
civ 2 tech tree
I distinctly remember having a "goal" button in civ 2, from the research menu you click "goal" and the game would list every tech in the game, you'd select the one you wanted and the game would automatically beeline you to it. I don't remember an N feature but I was 9-15 back when I was playing civ2 so may not have understood the concept...
Back then Sid Meier doesn't use the term 'Technology'. he uses the term 'Advancements' instead.

did the separate 'Tech and Civics' system 'as good as it is' or is it better to revert to 'Advancements'? (since Universities are the place where modern politicians are graduated, and political treatises are either written or their paper documents stored there and not bookshelves behind theaters stage).

what should be a proper model of social progress actually?
 
Here we are making the case of how technology is not linear, but do you know what is way less linear? The civics/policies!!!
Have two different trees whose main distinction is that they use different currencies is boring and redundant. The social element of civs is the perfect one to be more about trigger decision events as missions that make you to pick between exclusive options. Social change dont need to be another progressive acumulation of dozens of upgrades, technology fit better that model.

Also is absurd to think of "science" as something that is spent to unlock technologies, on the contrary scientific knowledge is produced by the research. So research technologies should accumulate knowledge not spent it. We can use this global accumulation to achieve new Eras.
Meanwhile, "culture" in civ is more art related and art rarely cause social change by itself. Of course they still are related, art is a powerfull way for cultures to highlight their beliefs, traditions, morals and event politics. So instead of spent culture to research civics, you get civics/policies by the narrative mission/events and culture yield is a influence value that similar to CIV4 compete with others cultures. This way culture is not the way to change your society but the way your ideologies influence the world.
 
Last edited:
I think there are civics, and there are civics. The term seem to be used interchangeably for the civ 4/5 and 6 version like they're the same thing, but they represent two wholly different concepts. Civ 6 civics are the humanities/social science/philosohy half of the old tech tree, fundamentally a form of scholarly research. They represent intelectual investigation into topics, which a) has always been part of the research tree prior to 6 and b) most certainly belong in the tech tree. Researching a civic in 6 represent intelectual inquiry into a particular field of social sciences - exactly as any scientific inquiry. It does not mean you'e adopting the result of the research.

Civ 4/5 civics represent more the growing traits and qualities of your culture (and government); they are not researched but adopted, representing cultural evolution. The closest equivalent in VI is not Civics, but Policy Cards.

These are two separate things, which have always been separate and should remain so. But I agree research into civics should not have its own currency: political and cultural advancements/technologices should go back to being part of the general tech tree while civ customization can be handled in many ways.

As to accumulating and "spending" science, it's a perfectly reasonable abstraction. You need to perform a certain amount of research to unlock a new technology. This does not mean you're losing or spending the research: it's merely an abstracted way to measure the time and effort that need to be invested in research to develop new technology. The idea that you lose science to get a technology seems like a particularly surprising level of literal interpretation. Gaining technology without spending science, which is instead used for era advancement seems like a profoundly strange idea to me.
 
As to accumulating and "spending" science, it's a perfectly reasonable abstraction. You need to perform a certain amount of research to unlock a new technology. This does not mean you're losing or spending the research: it's merely an abstracted way to measure the time and effort that need to be invested in research to develop new technology. The idea that you lose science to get a technology seems like a particularly surprising level of literal interpretation. Gaining technology without spending science, which is instead used for era advancement seems like a profoundly strange idea to me.
CIV traditional abstraction is fair but the suggested option is closer to what technological research is. In both you decide which tech to research and both bring you closer to advance era. Still gain instead of spend science not only represent the accumulative nature of knowledge it also make more evident the advance to reach a greater milestone like is to advance to a new era. This also add to the notion that reach for example the Classical Era is not only about have Iron Working but a more flexible and broad accumulation of knowledge in different areas, that could include even some techs from the next era if we advance more X or Y line of research, getting this way an usefull representation of "heterodox" civs technological advances.
The whole science and culture overflow "banking" show us how turn these concepts into "currencies" to spend have awful conceptual and gameplay implications.

I think there are civics, and there are civics. The term seem to be used interchangeably for the civ 4/5 and 6 version like they're the same thing, but they represent two wholly different concepts. Civ 6 civics are the humanities/social science/philosohy half of the old tech tree, fundamentally a form of scholarly research. They represent intelectual investigation into topics, which a) has always been part of the research tree prior to 6 and b) most certainly belong in the tech tree. Researching a civic in 6 represent intelectual inquiry into a particular field of social sciences - exactly as any scientific inquiry. It does not mean you'e adopting the result of the research.

Civ 4/5 civics represent more the growing traits and qualities of your culture (and government); they are not researched but adopted, representing cultural evolution. The closest equivalent in VI is not Civics, but Policy Cards.

These are two separate things, which have always been separate and should remain so. But I agree research into civics should not have its own currency: political and cultural advancements/technologices should go back to being part of the general tech tree while civ customization can be handled in many ways.
The "policies" as options to customize you society/religion/government are the only ones that have true gameplay value to me. The "civics" end being a mere intermediary to unluck what players realy want an under a narrative on-map active system of mission and decision turn to be pointless.
Like just said any criticism to how technologies are in reality is magnified for civics. Also just by look to the in-game names, eras and even the difficulty to define them historically many of them are just placeholders to fill a civic tree ("Early Empire", "Games and Recreation" in classical, Mercenaries in medieval, etc.). Just make policies the ones that make sense and get rid of others. The representation in-game of the social studies could be kept by academies an option for universities (monasteries, etc.) to direct their science yield to unique bonus for example Theology (belief spread), History (gain from artifacts), Sociology (ease social reforms), Economy (trade and corporations), etc.
 
Yes, really. Now that we know what the Era actually is, might as well represent it correctly.
Got any questions? Read the news, or rather watch Youtube channels that cover real news. (Can't expect Media to tell you Jack about Jill.)

Instead of Future Era, lets make an Era where everything just breaks down and keeps going wrong. Cities begin to starve, riots and revolts take place everywhere. Gold rapidly fluctuates. An entire era, where, due to big shots with unacceptable agendas and ludicrously poor management, everything sucks.

The Strategy for this era is simple: IF YOU HAVEN'T WON THE GAME YET, WIN THE FREAKIN GAME. LOL
 
I utterly and vehemently disagree with the idea that there should be no research related to the humans aspect of civilization.

Generally, for most of human existence, the advancement of social science/humanities/philosophies is inseparable from the advancement of technology/science. The development of technologies led to the advancement of humanities, which inspired new technologies, which enabled new philosophies. That's the case even today ; and was all the more prior to the nineteenth century when the natural sciences and the human sciences were essentially intertwined. To obfuscate that part of history because "it doesn't interest me" is just a ridiculous take on game design.

Every single criticism and alternatives you apply for the humanities/civics/policies could be applied just as well to the tech tree. It does create a problem with representation (that is, in fact, just as bad as the one that comes with the humanities). It COULD be replaced with a system where new abilities and units are unlocked via making choices in events that allow you to customize your civilization by determining what parts of technology it emphasize. And it would be just as accurate as your model for civics, which is, not very much at all, because in both cases, you're erasing the importance of research to make advancement all based on luck (getting the event) and choices. In neither case is this a good system.

Research is a fundamental part of the game for a reason, and to remove it, even only for parts of the game, is to remove one of the key cornerstones of Civilization. And why? Because you're not interested in this aspect of the game? There are aspects of the game I'm not interested in, too, but I'm not out there suggesting their removal. Perhaps it would be a good thing for all of us to recognize that other people may be interested in the aspects of the games we are not, and to not lightly remove things for this?

An event-based choice system for *actually adopting* some aspect of civics could be interesting, though I think I overall prefer the greater control and customization of a Civ IV style policy model (but perhaps "bonus" civics could be obtainable through events). But it neither requires nor justifies the removal of social research from the game.

As for accumulating science, "awful conceptual and gameplay implications", seriously? No, they don't, if you actually interpret the abstraction in a reasonable way. For example, it seems fairly clear that science accumulation is meant to be represented not by accumulated science points, but by total amount (and specific nature) of tech researched. In that light, you do not "lose" science when you research a tech, but merely convert theoretical thinking and experiments into practical results or fully developed theory. I fail to see any awful implication in that. Awful implications that only exist when you squint at the game a certain angle aren't really worth much consideration.
 
Last edited:
As for accumulating science, "awful conceptual and gameplay implications", seriously? No, they don't, if you actually interpret the abstraction in a reasonable way. For example, it seems fairly clear that science accumulation is meant to be represented not by accumulated science points, but by total amount (and specific nature) of tech researched. In that light, you do not "lose" science when you research a tech, but merely convert theoretical thinking and experiments into practical results or fully developed theory. I fail to see any awful implication in that. Awful implications that only exist when you squint at the game a certain angle aren't really worth much consideration.
About the Spend vs Gain science from research, where is the real reason to keep the spend approach? The accumulation of science to reach new eras free us from the need of specific technologies so there is not as deterministic as the current model, but not only that if the great objetive is based in the total ammount of science this allows to integrate the science earned by non-techs use of science like the mentioned academies that allows you to gain bonuses for an specific topic during the turns you select a particular academy, also we can replace the need to micro an archeologist with expeditions that prospect the tiles of a selected area to find artifacts and resourses, also the formation of varities of croops that are upgraded copies of plant and animal resources. Then science turn into a more flexible topic, so this is not just about an abstraction but actual in-game applications.

I utterly and vehemently disagree with the idea that there should be no research related to the humans aspect of civilization.

Generally, for most of human existence, the advancement of social science/humanities/philosophies is inseparable from the advancement of technology/science. The development of technologies led to the advancement of humanities, which inspired new technologies, which enabled new philosophies. That's the case even today ; and was all the more prior to the nineteenth century when the natural sciences and the human sciences were essentially intertwined. To obfuscate that part of history because "it doesn't interest me" is just a ridiculous take on game design.

Every single criticism and alternatives you apply for the humanities/civics/policies could be applied just as well to the tech tree. It does create a problem with representation (that is, in fact, just as bad as the one that comes with the humanities). It COULD be replaced with a system where new abilities and units are unlocked via making choices in events that allow you to customize your civilization by determining what parts of technology it emphasize. And it would be just as accurate as your model for civics, which is, not very much at all, because in both cases, you're erasing the importance of research to make advancement all based on luck (getting the event) and choices. In neither case is this a good system.
So give me some examples of how the players would just select to use obsidian tools instead of bronze, or bronze instead of iron when there are the resources and knowledge to use the later.
Could we look to the industrial neighboors and just say "no I want to keep being a pastoral society" and expect not to be steamrolled by them? We can make a case of Monarchy vs Republic as alternatives, and if there is something about all the different ideological blocks of the 20th century agreed was the need of technological progress to improve their societies.

The selection of the technologies you are researching already conver the part of the priority and which branches to advance, but build a system of real alternatives of which technologies to adopt is way more difficult that the ideological aspects. Historical exceptions were mostly products of shortage of key natural resources and enviromental conditions but the moment those societies were confronted they usually ended disadvantaged and incorporated the new mostly superior innovation.
The enviromental part is realy important for CIV since no for nothing people are suggesting to have less terrain depedent bonus for the civs so you are not constantly doomed by a bad random starting point. The worries this people have dnt trusting that Firaxis could achieve a good world generation that secure your civ to start in a place appropiate for their bonuses bias. Then we have people asking for a high Eureka-like terrain dependence for technologies, that is pretty dangerous if we even dont trust the world generation for even the basic civ bonuses, it would led to a random determined balance mess that most players would not enjoy. This is way more relevant for the technical tree and mainly for the early technologies that are the ones mostly determined by the resources around you at start. Meanwhile the players build their society from start to end, so the players could direct their actions to trigger certain missions for social changes with the social enviroment they are building.

The average player could easily see the "advantege" of one technology over other, while could also understand the different paths of ideologies. Not for nothing we see the average people debating politics or religion but how often we see them debating over ship design?
CIV would need to turn into a more complex simulation if we need to justify to represent the economic and social reasons why China didnt advanced their own inventions in the way Europed did later.

Research is a fundamental part of the game for a reason, and to remove it, even only for parts of the game, is to remove one of the key cornerstones of Civilization. And why? Because you're not interested in this aspect of the game? There are aspects of the game I'm not interested in, too, but I'm not out there suggesting their removal. Perhaps it would be a good thing for all of us to recognize that other people may be interested in the aspects of the games we are not, and to not lightly remove things for this?

An event-based choice system for *actually adopting* some aspect of civics could be interesting, though I think I overall prefer the greater control and customization of a Civ IV style policy model (but perhaps "bonus" civics could be obtainable through events). But it neither requires nor justifies the removal of social research from the game.

Firaxis started the separation of social and natural branches of science in CIV5 and consolidated it with CIV6. The later game added a lot of cultural related elements to game like the multiple kinds of great people, cultural artifacts, gives religions their own victory and main "currency", cultural based tourism as a key element, plus all the goverment related mechanics. Meanwhile the science(the in-game currency) part lost weight with the many units, buildings, etc. now linked to culture based civics and the introduction of eurekas that allows to reduce the dependence in a good science yield.

Provide a basic population element to justify the social changes of your civ could be more engaging that the dull accumulation of a different color of currency to spend in a name from a list that allows you to chose the actual option that you actualy want. The current design is pasive and narrative lacking the alternative make you take decisions over your own actions.

Still, I am open to suggestions. For example if you think put apart the Social Sciences from the Technical Sciences is wrong, lets put them together again. Using science to unlock all of them but like was said dont call them "technologies", maybe advances as was pointed out could be used again.
 
Last edited:
Throw my two drachmai in here . . .

The two major things that I have been thinking about lately in regard to 'research' of any kind in the 4X game context are:

1. No matter when you start, every game starts with a bunch of research and discoveries already made. Trying to start a game without acknowledging that fact results in Tech Trees in Civ games with 'Techs' like Agriculture and Animal Husbandry/Domestication only available after 4000 BCE, or about 5000 years Too Late. Unless you want to backdate the games to a start date of 2,000,000 years ago with a first available Tech of "Climb out of the trees and stand on your hind legs so you can hold things in your front legs" there is Always going to be some technology/knowledge already available, and in most cases the precise knowledge will vary from group to group, sometimes dramatically so by the time you get to the Proto-City start date that most games seem to aim for. There has to be a mechanic to assign a set of Pre-Start Techs to each group, and there should be a way to vary them based on the conditions the group has faced in terrain, weather, food supplies, etc.

2. For the huge majority of human existence, 'Research' has been individual and disorganized. The earliest example of a Research Lab I can think of is Dionysius' Ortygia Workshop around 400 BCE, and that only lasted for a few years and concentrated on a few specific developments (the Quinquereme warship, crossbow and catapult). Virtually everything else was developed by various individuals and groups slowly groping their way to solutions for specific problems. Even when an individual can be picked out as 'solving' some problem by himself, he is building on a basis of other developments done by unrecognized individuals before him - we not only stand on the shoulders of giants, but on the shoulders of ants, a great many of them.

Which means not only does all Research have to be Abstracted, but a great deal of the influence on it (Bonuses, Eurekas, etc) should be what the group (Civ) is doing. Never fight a war, and advances in military matters will happen only by accident, like adopting hunting weapons to combat or fishing boats to naval combat. Rely almost entirely on hunting large animals for Food, and eventually you will realize that rounding up some of those animals, getting them used to a fenced and protected existence and taking orders from People, and harvesting them as needed is much, much more reliable and easier. IF one of those animals can also be ridden or bred to be ridden, you will inevitably find that riding is much more efficient for movement and herding than trying to herd on foot and that being able to gallop into and out of battle is much preferable to being on foot and thus frequently unable to get away, and you become Pastoral or at least Cavalry. This kind of research may last centuries, as in the genetic manipulation of maize and potato and the horse to be useful, or it may take place very quickly, as in the development of the spoked wheel chariot from solid-wheeled carts and then the spreading of the chariot technology to everyone from Poland to Greece to Egypt to India to China within a few hundred years, with dramatic effects on those groups wherever the chariots appeared.

So, in addition to deciding how to abstract the various types of research: hard versus soft technologies, humanistic versus Practical Application, I think we also have to consider how to account for variations in Start Technology among groups that have already specialized for various biomes and food sources, and how to represent the effects of Local Conditions and Activities of all kinds on the speed and direction of decentralized, disorganized 'research'.
 
Firaxis started the separation of social and natural branches of science in CIV5 and consolidated it with CIV6. The later game added a lot of cultural related elements to game like the multiple kinds of great people, cultural artifacts, gives religions their own victory and main "currency", cultural based tourism as a key element, plus all the goverment related mechanics. Meanwhile the science(the in-game currency) part lost weight with the many units, buildings, etc. now linked to culture based civics and the introduction of eurekas that allows to reduce the dependence in a good science yield.

Provide a basic population element to justify the social changes of your civ could be more engaging that the dull accumulation of a different color of currency to spend in a name from a list that allows you to chose the actual option that you actualy want. The current design is pasive and narrative lacking the alternative make you take decisions over your own actions.

Still, I am open to suggestions. For example if you think put apart the Social Sciences from the Technical Sciences is wrong, lets put them together again. Using science to unlock all of them but like was said dont call them "technologies", maybe advances as was pointed out could be used again.
If I was designing a game from the ground up, it would be easier to concise the idea of acquiring "knowledge" to learn new things. That way libraries, academies, universities etc. could be used to advance along a tree of both new technologies and new ways to govern etc.

But I agree that there needs to be a separation if we decide to go back to calling things such as "Drama and Poetry", technologies.
 
Yep, the more likely outcome is that Firaxis keep their traditional terms for sake of in-franchise recognition. Still "research" and "science"(whatever it include humanities or not) feel wrong since most of the historical range the advances/innovations were not under a proper scientific procedure of research.

1. No matter when you start, every game starts with a bunch of research and discoveries already made. Trying to start a game without acknowledging that fact results in Tech Trees in Civ games with 'Techs' like Agriculture and Animal Husbandry/Domestication only available after 4000 BCE, or about 5000 years Too Late. Unless you want to backdate the games to a start date of 2,000,000 years ago with a first available Tech of "Climb out of the trees and stand on your hind legs so you can hold things in your front legs" there is Always going to be some technology/knowledge already available, and in most cases the precise knowledge will vary from group to group, sometimes dramatically so by the time you get to the Proto-City start date that most games seem to aim for. There has to be a mechanic to assign a set of Pre-Start Techs to each group, and there should be a way to vary them based on the conditions the group has faced in terrain, weather, food supplies, etc.
Like CIV4's civs starting with a technology already researched but for your starting area. I like it, is usefull, nice and simple, still I would like to have a "prologue" prehistoric/neolithic era to explore and adapt by yourself with more liberty. Similar to Humankind but better implemented and not too centered around nomadism.
This way some of the early techs would not feel as belated as they look at 4K bc.

2. For the huge majority of human existence, 'Research' has been individual and disorganized. The earliest example of a Research Lab I can think of is Dionysius' Ortygia Workshop around 400 BCE, and that only lasted for a few years and concentrated on a few specific developments (the Quinquereme warship, crossbow and catapult). Virtually everything else was developed by various individuals and groups slowly groping their way to solutions for specific problems. Even when an individual can be picked out as 'solving' some problem by himself, he is building on a basis of other developments done by unrecognized individuals before him - we not only stand on the shoulders of giants, but on the shoulders of ants, a great many of them.

Which means not only does all Research have to be Abstracted, but a great deal of the influence on it (Bonuses, Eurekas, etc) should be what the group (Civ) is doing. Never fight a war, and advances in military matters will happen only by accident, like adopting hunting weapons to combat or fishing boats to naval combat. Rely almost entirely on hunting large animals for Food, and eventually you will realize that rounding up some of those animals, getting them used to a fenced and protected existence and taking orders from People, and harvesting them as needed is much, much more reliable and easier. IF one of those animals can also be ridden or bred to be ridden, you will inevitably find that riding is much more efficient for movement and herding than trying to herd on foot and that being able to gallop into and out of battle is much preferable to being on foot and thus frequently unable to get away, and you become Pastoral or at least Cavalry. This kind of research may last centuries, as in the genetic manipulation of maize and potato and the horse to be useful, or it may take place very quickly, as in the development of the spoked wheel chariot from solid-wheeled carts and then the spreading of the chariot technology to everyone from Poland to Greece to Egypt to India to China within a few hundred years, with dramatic effects on those groups wherever the chariots appeared.

So, in addition to deciding how to abstract the various types of research: hard versus soft technologies, humanistic versus Practical Application, I think we also have to consider how to account for variations in Start Technology among groups that have already specialized for various biomes and food sources, and how to represent the effects of Local Conditions and Activities of all kinds on the speed and direction of decentralized, disorganized 'research'.
The spread of knowledge (both technical and ideological) is another huge fail of the traditional CIV representation of "research". Most of the real historical advancements were made in just a few or even a single place in the world and then spread to others regions by natural diffusion mostly by trade, but also diplomacy and conquest. So civs researching most technologies/civics by themselves is a huge misrepresentation.
Maybe we could change the use of "research" by the term "learn" since this fit the idea of getting knowledge from others, adding bonuses to get knowledge from logical means like trade routes, good diplomatic relations, etc. (Still the first civ to get a new advancement would get some prestige recognition and bonuses, like also any one that achieve it in isolation).

So what about this...
You accumulate Progress (the yield) by learning Knowledge (techs/civics), when you reach certain amount of total Progress you could advance Eras. Also you can help to reach those eras with Progress gained by doing expeditions, sponsor academies and develop varities.
Since here I am including again the Social/Humanities as part of Science in general it make more sense to use your total accumulate Progress to advance to new eras, this way we recognize that those eras are not just the result of a specific single/set of technologies but a broad change in many aspects. Then eurekas/inspirations instead of discount "research cost" gives you free Progress for the specific Knowledge.

*Note: There is the option to use "Knowledge" for the yield/currency and maybe "Ideas" for the tech/civic.
 
Last edited:
I've been very clear that I do not want a different color of currency. To me, the currency is one thing and it should apply to all. The idea that because the currency has been called "science" and the items you purchase with it "technology" they should be limited to natural sciences and technological progress is a perfect example of overly literal thinking. The terms used in Civilization are broad approximations meant to fit six thousand years of history in one game. That said, while I don't consider it necessary, I'm well onboard with renaming science (and technology).

I still, however, advocate for Research, and I will point out that your understanding of that word appear to be innacurate. In plain English meaning, Research has never been limited to the scientific process. It covers any deep study or inquiry into a topic in order to acquite knowledge or advance understanding, regardless of the method employed. The fact that it is a broad word covering a wide variety of ways of studying a topic is precisely what makes it a good choice.

Onward to what appears to be your main idea, you seem to be conflating research into new technologies, and application of those technologies at the civilization level. In many cases, civilizations that ended up not using a technology did not do so for lack of knowledge. Likewise with metalworking, which was understood to some degree by some Mesoamerican civilizations, but never turned to the making of weapons because considering available resources, obsidian achieved better bang for buck. In all cases, it's not lack of research that's the problem. It'S that these civilization had no use for what the research unlocked, and so didn't build it.

For that reason, I question the idea that the two should be conflated. It is a perfectly fine thing to have research and application be separate things, and in fact, this has been the norm for every single civilization game. Trying to merge them into a single thing when, historically, they were not, and when the game has more than proved that they need not be...does not seem fruitful. There is no Highlander "there can be only one" choice here: this is a Road to Eldorado Both is good scenario. We can have research, and we can have application as separate elements in the game.

It seems much simpler, in game terms, to separate knowledge of a technology from utilisation of the technology. In which case we can have a well-developed system for Social Customization (so to speak) allowing you to fine-tune your society, and still a complete research system.

As to your proposed inversion of the research system, I still see little gain for the pain to it.

First, pain-wise, whichever way you look at it, it, your proposed approach requires an additional step. We go from Accumulate Science - Obtain Techhnology - Progress in Age (three steps) to (???) - Obtain Technology - Accumulate Science - Progress in Age. There still need to be a step, in some form, to initiate the whole process by making you gain that technology. I'm not sure from your posts so far what you propose that step to be ; at time it seemed like you were suggesting an event system based of in-game action (so, some kind of super-Eureka system, akin to Babylon in Civ VI?), at other times it seemed more like you were talking about a...percentage change of obtaining a request, the percentage being determined by your in-game situation and the building of academies increasing your odds to unlock a certain technology in a certain field? I'm not quite sure what you intend there, but the key point - that it turns a three-step process into a four-step process, remains, and must be considered, because it does represent a significant increase in complexity.

As for the gain, you speak of being able to progress without requiring specific technologies, and of academies specialized in certain fields of knowledge. A fair assessment; but to my mind both can easily be achieved in the current system, and do not require your proposed change. Tech-agnotic era progress is easily done : simply set the requirement to having a certain number of technologies (or advancements, or what have you) from one era. This has substantially the same effect as your requirement of a certain amount of (Tech Currency) possessed, and may even allow for setting *more diverse* requirements than simply a currency. Academies, likewise, can be implemented by having each tech belong to a specific field (somethign that was present as far back as Civ *II* which divided advances into Military, Economic, Social, Academic and Applied fields), and have specific academies increase science output when researching a tech from the appropriate field.
 
I didn't make myself clear.
I was not advocating a more complex system, but a difference emphasis within the system. Specifically, more emphasis on the in-game actions and events to influence Learning progress (since Technology is too easily confused with pure technological progress to the exclusion of social, civic or 'philosophical' changes, I'll use Learning as more generic term until someone comes up with something better).

I want to emphasize both the effects of having an illustrated need (by game actions) for an improvement in status and the Law of Unintended Consequences, where you think you are looking for a solution to A and get a solution to Z, a problem you didn't know you had. Examples are myriad, but two spring from nearly the same general historical source:
Alchemy in the west, expanding from the Hellenistic roots (another partial consequence of the Library/Museon at Alexandria, in fact) cpncerned itself with turning base metals into Gold. Consequently, it explored inorganic chemical interactions, wound up distilling both sulphuric and nitric acids, and by the Medieval Era (in the Caliphates) set the basis for future developments in Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, incliding smokeless powder, advanced chemical fertilizers, and modern medicines - none of which, needless to say, were what they were looking for.
Chinese Alchemy, on the other hand, was almost exclusively concerned with the search for Long Life or Immortality, and so had something of a Medicinal Basis from the start. Messing about with substances, they produced, according to the earliest probable mention, "three powders that fly and dance" - Fire Seed, or Gunpowder. Unintended consequences, indeed.

Part of this thought process is to find a way of making the Tech Tree less linear and more subject to variation within each game. Current attempts in this direction seem to be revolving around Random Card or Deck-draw and shuffle and other Gamey mechanics that, to me at least, simply intrude into the game.

So, for instance, taking Civ VI's 'Eurekas' and Bonuses, why not turn them around? That is, instead of the Eureka being a bonus to obtaining a given Technology, why not make them (with considerable revision) a requirement?

Example:
You don't have a city on the coast, you can't research Seafaring or Sailing. It won't even show up in 'your' Tech Tree for that Civ in that game. You might get it by diffusion from a neighbor (including, of course, a City State or Settlement) but that will take longer and how long depends on how much you have to Learn: if you live in a desert without forests, you won't even have the woodworking skills to build hulls, let alone make sails, rigging, and learn how to use it all.

By using the in-game situation of each Civ as a basis for what they can learn, each Civ's tech tree should appear somewhat different to each of them, and provide a variety of paths to 'progress'. Because, in addition to technological solutions to your situations, some offered solutions might be 'soft' solutions, like opening up trade with a landlocked neighbor across the desert instead of taking to the sea routes. Multiple routes to a goal or solution should almost always be available in some form.

Another point is to separate Knowledge from Application. Call them Projects: you learn how to build sailing craft or gunppwder, that doesn't instantly give you a massive Naval Empire or Gunners. For those ships, you also need docks/harbors of some kind, which means new ways of building with stone, brick, wood or concrete (waterproof mortar was actually invented before 600 BCE, for just this type of construction). The progress from Gunpowder to Gun took, IRL, at least 400 years of trial and error, through fireworks and firelances and exploding grenades and incendiary devices before they actually shot anything solid out of a tube using the 'flying and dancing' powder. This, in fact, might be where you have to concentrate Resources: call them Research Points, or Knowledge Infrastructure (build a Navigator's College, an Alchemical Laboratory, or just require every walled city to include Gunpowder weapons in its stockpiles - all were done)

Final Point: Every Civ will start with some 'technology', based on what they've been doing Before the Start. The way to handle this, I think, is to fiddle with the opening sequence of the game.
Right now, you pick a Civ (or Random), sometimes pick an Alternate Leader, then see the map and start playing.
I propose that you pick a Civ, see the map and your starting biome, and then pick from a set of offered technologies: Have a spot on the coast (or, possibly, floodplains full of marsh and fish) and you can pick Fishing to start, which includes primitive Boats. Start in a desert, and Woodworking will NOT be an Option.

I suggest, for a simple scheme, that potential Starting Technologies might be organized as:
Food Sources:
Animal Husbandry/Domestication - if your start includes Cattle, Sheep, or Horses.
Agriculture - your start includes Grains, Rice, Maize or any Food Plant as a Resource
Fishing/Boating - your start is on the coast or next to Floodplains/Marshlands

Building Materials:
Stoneworking - requires a Mountain or stone or marble resource in the starting radius
Woodworking - requires some kind of Forest in your starting radius
Pottery (brickmaking, adobe) - requires marsh, coast, floodplains in the starting radius

You might also pick a Project related to the Food Sources:
Brewing - a Project of Agriculture
Archery - a Project of Animal Husbandry
Weaving - a Project of Fishing (earliest man-worked fibers found were fishing nets from the Paleolithic)

I suggest the picks be made after your initial Settler/Pioneer move, so you have some slim choice about the starting position that will influence what you are offered. You have to choose a Food Source (and, for instance, you might frequently get one or more possible choices, if the terrain is coastal and filled with useful plants and animals) first, and then you can choose One more Project or Tech. If you don't choose any of the Building Materials, you probably aren't going to be building any early monuments, city walls or other substantial constructions, but you might have some very happy population (Brewing), early military/defensive advantage (Archery) or early Luxury Goods (Weaving)

Rather obviously, most of these will also give you a jump start for later developments:
The kilns required for pottery/bricks are also the ones used for primitive Metallurgy, the working of Copper, Lead, Silver and Gold
Stoneworking or Woodworking give you the option to pour effort into an early Monumental Construction: Gobekli Tepi, The White Temple, Tarxian Complex, Si an Bhru, Henges, Dolmans, etc
Brewing provides a bonus for development of Ecstatic Religion, Oracles, and Festivals - you mau have more social/civic choices earlier than your neighbors.
 
In fairness, I was more addressing Buchi Taton's concept and extrapolation from your idea than yours,

I find that while your idea has potential, it is very much of a "thread carefuly" sort of concept. Realism in relation between starting situation and development is good, but so is giving players flexibility to plan moves ahead in a way historical civilizations did not. It's a delicate balance.

Locking people may also be an issue in border regions where you may find yourself in one biome at first only to disover that you're in a micro-region of that biome surrounded by quite different biomed,

Regarding separating application from research, I would argue the case that application, in game, come with the completion of the first unit, building, etc using the tech. They are already separate in practice in the game, and especially in earlier stages the lenght between discovering a tech and actually applying it may span decades if not centuries.
 
My issue with “technology is the thing that determines what era you are in” has always been the game based implication that “make as much science as possible” has always been the best strategy.

I never considered dividing the techs into different categories, then have certain buildings produce science specifically when researching a specific category.
Markets are +2 science per turn when researching an “economic” tech. Amphitheatres are +2 science per turn when researching a “humanities” tech. Barracks are +2 science when researching a “military” tech etc. I could see that working with a “research 10 out of 30 possible age 2 technologies to progress to age 3" system.

Your technologies reflect your buildings, your buildings reflect your civilization.
 
I've been very clear that I do not want a different color of currency. To me, the currency is one thing and it should apply to all. The idea that because the currency has been called "science" and the items you purchase with it "technology" they should be limited to natural sciences and technological progress is a perfect example of overly literal thinking. The terms used in Civilization are broad approximations meant to fit six thousand years of history in one game. That said, while I don't consider it necessary, I'm well onboard with renaming science (and technology).

I still, however, advocate for Research, and I will point out that your understanding of that word appear to be innacurate. In plain English meaning, Research has never been limited to the scientific process. It covers any deep study or inquiry into a topic in order to acquite knowledge or advance understanding, regardless of the method employed. The fact that it is a broad word covering a wide variety of ways of studying a topic is precisely what makes it a good choice.
Yes the use of names in game are just labels and CIV already changed from "Advances" to "Technologies" to separated "Technologies" and "Civics" and could change again to unified them in "Knowledge". But we cant denay that the use of "science" (with flask icon) to "research" "technologies" for a separated tree from Civics highly imply a STEM focus that do not need us to be "overly literal thinking" to interpret it that way. This is Firaxis recent approach and if we get back to an unified tree that include again humanities is a good oportunity to rename this unified concept, change "research" to "learning" is not indispensable but could be part of the new approach were the influence of your neighboors that already have these "knowledge" is more significative like it is in real history.

Onward to what appears to be your main idea, you seem to be conflating research into new technologies, and application of those technologies at the civilization level. In many cases, civilizations that ended up not using a technology did not do so for lack of knowledge. Likewise with metalworking, which was understood to some degree by some Mesoamerican civilizations, but never turned to the making of weapons because considering available resources, obsidian achieved better bang for buck. In all cases, it's not lack of research that's the problem. It'S that these civilization had no use for what the research unlocked, and so didn't build it.

For that reason, I question the idea that the two should be conflated. It is a perfectly fine thing to have research and application be separate things, and in fact, this has been the norm for every single civilization game. Trying to merge them into a single thing when, historically, they were not, and when the game has more than proved that they need not be...does not seem fruitful. There is no Highlander "there can be only one" choice here: this is a Road to Eldorado Both is good scenario. We can have research, and we can have application as separate elements in the game.
One think was my point that CIV model is deterministic by design in the technological part while the social part is already about alternative paths. Another thing was highlight how some "civics" in their own tree are either broad concepts put in arbitrary places like Mercenaries, while others are perfect material for implemented ideologies like Capitalism. Have both Mercenaries as a mechanic that allows you to actually have mercenaries and Capitalism as an option of main ideology add more value to the game that turn them into a label for the required culture cost to unlock the actual things that player use as are policies, governments, units and buildings. And yes in CIV6 Capitalism comes from "Mass Media" and is unlocked by spending culture that comes mostly from art related sources (you can dispute this approach with Firaxis not me).

Now lets see CIV representation of Metalworking. CIV4 have Bronze Working that allows Axeman, Slavery and chop forest. CIV5 have also Bronze Working for Spearman, Battering Ram and Barracks, and CIV6 again have Bronze Working that unlock Spearman and Encampment+Barracks. So in CIV terms if Aztec use some of the most basic militar elements like spearman and barracks (and slavery) then they applied the in-game use of Metal Working. By the way in Mesoamerica the Tlaximaltepoztli (bronze hatchets) had some use as tool and weapon mostly for the Purepecha that by the way were religiously obsessed to get firewood for sacred fires so the "unlock chop forest" fit nicely.
So clarifiying I never conflated the research and use of "technologies", in CIV terms technologies unlock units, buildings, etc. So the historical little use of metalworking in Mesoamerica can be explained by either the lack of strategic resources for the eureka, a player that is researching or just finished it, or a player that did not produced the militar units unlocked by Bronze Working.
Then if you think is easy to have a system of alternative technological paths like we can have alternative ideological paths then explain how for example would look a competitive path for a civ that decide to use obsidian despite already have metalworking.

It seems much simpler, in game terms, to separate knowledge of a technology from utilisation of the technology. In which case we can have a well-developed system for Social Customization (so to speak) allowing you to fine-tune your society, and still a complete research system.
Again I specifically explained why is easier for devs to implement and for player to understand alternative ideological paths and not technological alternative paths, and just clarified why there are many directly applicable concepts turned into civic labels. The whole point was that technologies would still use traditional "research tree", meanwhile the need to "research civics" could be skipped by getting access to ideologies/policies by more dynamic and versatile means.

As to your proposed inversion of the research system, I still see little gain for the pain to it.

First, pain-wise, whichever way you look at it, it, your proposed approach requires an additional step. We go from Accumulate Science - Obtain Techhnology - Progress in Age (three steps) to (???) - Obtain Technology - Accumulate Science - Progress in Age. There still need to be a step, in some form, to initiate the whole process by making you gain that technology. I'm not sure from your posts so far what you propose that step to be ; at time it seemed like you were suggesting an event system based of in-game action (so, some kind of super-Eureka system, akin to Babylon in Civ VI?), at other times it seemed more like you were talking about a...percentage change of obtaining a request, the percentage being determined by your in-game situation and the building of academies increasing your odds to unlock a certain technology in a certain field? I'm not quite sure what you intend there, but the key point - that it turns a three-step process into a four-step process, remains, and must be considered, because it does represent a significant increase in complexity.
There is no more steps. We already have a "tech research queue" were we select the next technologies to be unlocked using our science yield. We even have a progression bar that is being filled as we advance researching every technology. So what if we see the total acumulation of science from all our research as part of a bigger progression bar to reach new eras? Is that simple, we advance accumulating science for every research and this advance is also added to the bigger total progress.
- Academies are just an alternative use for our research queue. We can chose to apply our science yield into specific bonuses instead of research a new tech. The science generated during those turns still is counted for our global accumulate.
- The eurekas mention was just to address how the already implemented eurekas still would work in this model.
As for the gain, you speak of being able to progress without requiring specific technologies, and of academies specialized in certain fields of knowledge. A fair assessment; but to my mind both can easily be achieved in the current system, and do not require your proposed change. Tech-agnotic era progress is easily done : simply set the requirement to having a certain number of technologies (or advancements, or what have you) from one era. This has substantially the same effect as your requirement of a certain amount of (Tech Currency) possessed, and may even allow for setting *more diverse* requirements than simply a currency. Academies, likewise, can be implemented by having each tech belong to a specific field (somethign that was present as far back as Civ *II* which divided advances into Military, Economic, Social, Academic and Applied fields), and have specific academies increase science output when researching a tech from the appropriate field.
From the previous part is clear that the academies mechanic was not understood, and the expedition and varieties were just ignored. Anyway the point here is that we can use the science and the research queue in different things not just technology research, and that this advance also count to reach new eras.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom