Policy Idea: Flavor-Based Tech Discounts

[Gazebo]

Hey all, Gazebo here. Quick thought:

I haven't really looked into it much, but I think it might be possible to create policies which gave discounts on certain techs based on their flavors. So, for example, if you take a 'Military Science' policy, it would give a % discount on Techs with FLAVOR_OFFENSE or FLAVOR_DEFENSE. This might be a nice way to spread around the tech boosts of the policy tree without directly giving players extra/free/bonus beakers or specialists.

Ultimately, I'd like to see every Policy branch (both early- and late-game) have a somewhat viable science approach; this would bring civ marginally closer to the concept of technological and cultural divergence, which is lost if only certain branches give science and others do not.

Anyways, thoughts?
G

 

[ExpiredReign]

I think there may be something in this.

 

[Gazebo]

I think there may be something in this.

That's a rather vague answer. If you want/need any help, feel free to PM me. I'm always happy to help.
G

 

[Tomice]

Really nice idea! We'd just have to see how balanced it is. I guess there are more techs with military flavor than e.g. great people flavor.

 

[mitsho]

which isn't a big problem since military civs are the ones that are lacking in science. (We certainly don't need to give tradition civs a science boost for all techs with wonders f.e.)

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work since the flavours get set automatically in CEP and "spread downwards through the tech tree", no?

Needs testing, but sounds like a very good and creative idea

 

[ExpiredReign]

@gazebo

I wasn't really saying anything other than:
"If anyone implements this then I would probably like it included in my games."

Whether we or you or both of us start coding something like this, I can't say. We still have a lot of work getting what we already have up to scratch. IMO.

My comment should be seen as an acknowledgment of a good idea, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[project_ako]

Sounds excellent. Aren't a few policies in need of a revamp anyway?

 

[Ahriman]

Personally I would stay away from this. I don't like tying policy progress and tech progress too closely together. They're different elements of the game, different forms of investment.

We might also end up getting odd results (are we really sure that every flavor is logical and balancved?). The flavors were designed to be there for guiding AIs, they're not supposed to have an actual gameplay effect. I think it could be frustrating for the player to have to pay attention to which techs have particular flavors.

 

[Gazebo]

Personally I would stay away from this. I don't like tying policy progress and tech progress too closely together. They're different elements of the game, different forms of investment.

We might also end up getting odd results (are we really sure that every flavor is logical and balancved?). The flavors were designed to be there for guiding AIs, they're not supposed to have an actual gameplay effect. I think it could be frustrating for the player to have to pay attention to which techs have particular flavors.

Very good points. We could, however, assign techs values manually (side-stepping flavors) and do it that way - we'd have more control over the tree in that case.

While I agree that tech and policy are separate things, I would like to see 'technology' tied more closely to 'culture' - it feels odd that heavy-military civs end up technologically-backwards, when world history so often plays out in the opposite direction.

G

 

[Ahriman]

, I would like to see 'technology' tied more closely to 'culture' - it feels odd that heavy-military civs end up technologically-backwards

I guess I'm completely the opposite on this. IMO, every form of investment should have an opportunity cost. If I invest heavily in the military, rather than building economy or growth or science buildings, or in culture, then that *should* mean that you're slower in tech, or culture, or something.

 

[EricB]

I think it's good that military civilizations are backwards technologically. If they had the best military and the most up-to-date technology, what would stop them? Peaceful civs should advance in science faster.

 

[mitsho]

They should advance faster, yes, but that effect seems to accelerate over time. So the gap is much bigger in the Modern Era than the Classical which sometimes mean that there's a cutoff point where you don't have to fear conquest civs much anymore. While the catch-up mechanisms work great (mostly), a mechanism that allows military civs to 'get a bit ahead' 'in some military techs' worthwhile to explore (!). It's a delicate balance, that's for sure.

 

[EricB]

Personally, I'd like to see the science from trade routes increased and scaled by era. Early in the game it's fine, but late in the game an extra 4 science from a civilization that is 8 techs behind/ahead of you isn't much. I know that it's multiplied by the number of trade routes, so if you have six trade routes, it's 4 times 6 (24 science), but that's still a miniscule amount. If you are drastically far behind, it should be higher. Once you get to the Renaissance era instead of being 0.5 science per techs behind, it should be more like 1.0 to 1.5 science per techs behind.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hmm, what about a bonus/penalty system. So, for example, moving down the honour tree might give you a bonus to military techs, but act as a penalty to other techs with a different flavour (not sure which ones though). Moving down the Piety tree might give you bonuses to techs related to religion, but increasingly penalize you in the pure science techs. So on & so forth. Just spit-balling, you understand?

Aussie.

 

[Ahriman]

I don't really like the idea of my policy choices forcing me into particular tech paths, and the idea that policies will give me research *penalties* I dislike even more.

I think it is much better to use carrots to encourage tech/policy synergies: if I'm playing a conquest heavy playstyle then I'll want the Honor tree and I'll want military techs for good units. If I'm playing a Tall playstyle I'll want to go for techs with the good wonders. If I'm playing a wide playstyle I might want to go for techs enabling happiness buildings or improvement boosts.

There's no need to use sticks to penalize me for researching other techs.

There are also classification issues: are the naval techs economy techs, military techs, or both?

 

[agc28]

There is also a psychological issue at play here...

For example, if I want to be a naval superpower, do I want to beeline all the naval techs even in ancient era? or do I want to wait until medieval so I can unlock the wealth policy, thereby making the naval techs easier to research...?

The main problem is that a science discount actually discourages a certain style of play until that policy is researched.

The same thing applies to Angkor Wat. It is a poor design. Do I want to build it as soon as possible so I can gain +40 influence with the 5 city states I have met? Or should I wait until I meet all 15 city states in the game before building Angkor Wat..?

 

[mitsho]

I don't think negative values make sense and I don't think positive values make sense outside of particularly conquest or wide techs (but how do you define wide techs?). It might be a nice small buff in the honor tree, but I don't think it's worth it in later trees (see arguments above). And then there's the question whether other bonuses to honour wouldn't 'solve' this 'problem' easier and more straightforwardly (i.e. "Is it worth the effort?").

Angkor Wat on the other hand is a good design in my mind as you're constantly racing with other civs to get it... Somehow..

 

[stackpointer]

Technically speaking, this probably wouldn't be difficult to implement. The function we use to give bonus production to archeologists can be adjusted to give science bonuses to techs.

 

[Gazebo]

I guess I'm completely the opposite on this. IMO, every form of investment should have an opportunity cost. If I invest heavily in the military, rather than building economy or growth or science buildings, or in culture, then that *should* mean that you're slower in tech, or culture, or something.

I don't think we're that far apart, actually. I think there is an opportunity cost inherent in going Honor versus, say, Tradition, or building an early-game army vs. turtling and going tall science. Every strategy has its drawbacks, and every decision a downside. My only point with this idea was that a.) I think it is possible to do this and b.) it might be a means of controlling and/or equalizing science production across the policy branches without just adding beakers to buildings/actions.

Considering that science is the one thing all civs need to achieve victory (spaceship more than all others, obviously), it feels like it should be the most balanced of the yields. This is definitely a debatable topic, however.
G

 

[Ahriman]

it might be a means of controlling and/or equalizing science production across the policy branches

Why is this a desirable goal?

Some strategies and policy branches are better at peaceful science, some are better at war and conquest, some are better at gold and city state influence, etc.
That is as it should be.