A New Tech Tree Mechanic for Civilization 5

[Mxzs]

Wow, you've really lost track of the system. I think you need to go back and re-read my posts, all of these situations have already been accounted for. In this case, through the use of negative modifiers and the time requirement for adoption.

No, I know they're accounted for--I haven't lost track of anything. In that paragraph I'm emphasizing how close to the original Civ design the proposed adoption method is. The only thing that keeps the "adoption" phase from collapsing back into Civ's contemporary design is that in the new model unsupported techs would disappear. Some commenters, I think, have mentioned that they don't like that aspect. But it has to be there, or else this is just a reinvention of the wheel.

 

[ChrTh]

No, I know they're accounted for--I haven't lost track of anything. In that paragraph I'm emphasizing how close to the original Civ design the proposed adoption method is. The only thing that keeps the "adoption" phase from collapsing back into Civ's contemporary design is that in the new model unsupported techs would disappear. Some commenters, I think, have mentioned that they don't like that aspect. But it has to be there, or else this is just a reinvention of the wheel.

Ok, sorry, didn't read as closely as I should have

 

[dh_epic]

I noticed that this is actually closer to the tech tree than originally stated. But once again, that's not a bad thing. You've taken away some choices, but added new ones. Those are the most important pros and cons: what choices does the player make?

This system takes away the ability for players to choose specific technologies. But they get the next best thing, which is the ability to choose general areas of innovation. So the loss here, while significant, still allows choice. It's not blind randomness.

The new choices are the payoff.

- I just discovered a new tech. Is it the one I wanted? Will I invest a lot into adopting it? Or will I let it slide, maybe even forget about it for now? Can I juggle it in the background, while I focus on adopting a more important technology? If barbarians start invading, will I have invested enough to prevent this technology from being forgotten? Do I even care?

- What will help me more right now? Will I spur the advent of Feudalism by going to war? Or will I spur the advent of the Republic by staying peaceful? Maybe all this war is stunting innovation in necessary areas. Maybe all this war is promoting innovation in the most vital areas!

There are other benefits that go beyond choice. Tech trading can be more intuitive, since you can have one branch as easily tradable (metal working) and another branch having a different trade dynamic (religion). The notion that you can lose a technology, or vice-versa, discover something early creates interesting opportunities which can go either way.

But at the end of the day, most people care about what choices they get to make.

 

[NYHunter]

The main problem I see is that people will complain, including myself, that after so much time in finally discovering a tech than you need to adopt it, and then to secure that you don't lose it you need to embrace it. The fear I have is that such a Mechanic was ever introduced Firaxis would implement it in a way that makes it too difficult for the player to embrace technologies. However this can easily be countered by making it fairly quick/easy to go to the next stage. Otherwise, it would feel like a waste if you went through the trouble of discovering, and even more so adopting a tech but then it got abandoned and you have to wait for all the other civs to adopt/embrace it before you can rediscover it.

The Core System
The Four Stages of Techs

• Unknown/Abandoned: In the case of the former, the Tech has never been known to the Civilization. In the case of the latter, the Tech has been discovered (or even adopted!) but is no longer in use by the Civilization. An Abandoned Tech can not be rediscovered until all other Civs have adopted/embraced it.
• Discovered: A Discovered Tech is one that is now known to your Civilization, but which can not be used.
• Adopted: Once a Tech is Adopted, any benefits the Tech provides (buildings, units, civics, etc.) are now available to your Civilization. However, an Adopted Tech can not be traded to another Civ, and the possibility exists that you will lose the Tech.
• Embraced: Once a Tech is Embraced, your Civilization has incorporated the Tech into its definition of itself and can never lose it.

 

[ChrTh]

The main problem I see is that people will complain, including myself, that after so much time in finally discovering a tech than you need to adopt it, and then to secure that you don't lose it you need to embrace it. The fear I have is that such a Mechanic was ever introduced Firaxis would implement it in a way that makes it too difficult for the player to embrace technologies. However this can easily be countered by making it fairly quick/easy to go to the next stage. Otherwise, it would feel like a waste if you went through the trouble of discovering, and even more so adopting a tech but then it got abandoned and you have to wait for all the other civs to adopt/embrace it before you can rediscover it.

Re: Waiting for the other civs ... yeah, that's a screwup. I've since changed it.

As for Adopt/Embrace, it's really not going to be as hard as it sounds. Granted, at Deity level it's going to be a $@#!, but for the typical Prince (maybe even Monarch, if war doesn't happen that often) game, the player should be able to let the automated advisor do everything and still adopt/embrace without intervention -- at least, it should be balanced that way.

Another way to think about it is that Discovery is the same as being able to choose it to research. If you think about it as "I've just researched Hunting, now I've discovered Archery and can research that!", it's not really different from the current game.

I really need to edit the original posts with the changes ... that's my job for tomorrow!

 

[NYHunter]

Yea, I responded to that a bit early. I have now read the whole threa,. (something that seemed impossible at first) and I must say I have pretty much become a fan of this mechanic.

Re: Waiting for the other civs ... yeah, that's a screwup. I've since changed it.

As for Adopt/Embrace, it's really not going to be as hard as it sounds. Granted, at Deity level it's going to be a $@#!, but for the typical Prince (maybe even Monarch, if war doesn't happen that often) game, the player should be able to let the automated advisor do everything and still adopt/embrace without intervention -- at least, it should be balanced that way.

Another way to think about it is that Discovery is the same as being able to choose it to research. If you think about it as "I've just researched Hunting, now I've discovered Archery and can research that!", it's not really different from the current game.

I really need to edit the original posts with the changes ... that's my job for tomorrow!

 

[Mxzs]

I only have time tonight to post part of a longer post I've been working on. I'll post the rest later.

This started as a further refinement to my counter-proposals for interfaces and managing research, but it wound up moving in a different direction. I will start, though, by describing the interface I was working on.

[Technical details and asides are enclosed in spoiler boxes.]

So, let's picture a player in the middle of the game. He's just gotten through moving a Scout or Mining a hill or flipping the bird at Alexander, and his Science Advisor pops up in a box:

"Sire, we have just discovered an amazing new technique called 'Steam Power.' Shall our wise men see if anything useful can be done with it?"

• "I have no time for such nonsense."
• "Have them look into it."

If he hits the first option, he hears no more about it. If he hits the second, though, a menu appears that is similar to the "What would you like to research next?" menu that appears in Civ4 after you discover a tech. This screen, though, displays the techs you've discovered (in ChrTh's sense of "discovered") and are trying to adopt. And it would say something like this:

Which tech shall we prioritize?
Archery
[img] Gunpowder
[img] Steam Power[/quote]

When he moves the cursor over one of these choices, a side menu (like the "Details + Sid's Tips" side menu that currently pops up) appears. Inside that side menu would be a list of clickable choices. The side-menu next to "Steam Power" would look like this:

[quote]
Steam Power (10 turns); [color="red"]Archery (--)[/color]; Gunpowder (17 turns)
Steam Power (15 turns); Archery (21 turns) Gunpowder (24 turns)
Steam Power (23 turns); Archery (17 turns) Gunpowder (22 turns)
Steam Power (28 turns); Archery (11 turns); Gunpowder (16 turns)
[/quote]

[spoiler]For this example I make the following assumptions:
1. The player has 60 lightbulbs per turn he can distribute among these projects.
2. These three projects require the following number of lightbulbs in order to be adopted:

Archery: 210
Gunpowder: 450
Steam Power: 600

At the moment this menu appears, they each have the following number of lightbulbs already:

Archery: 60
Gunpowder: 180
Steam Power: 30

(Steam Power, like any just-discovered tech, gets a small number so it doesn't decay into abandonment right away.)

3. Each tech also has a -6 lightbulb modifier; so, for instance, if he puts nothing into Archery, it will decay into abandonment in ten turns.

4. Any excess lightbulbs in a track after a tech has been adopted are distributed evenly among the remaining techs he is trying to adopt.

5. When making calculations for this display, the program does not assume that any other discoveries will be added. In other words, it makes an "all other things being equal" calculation.

I'd appreciate it if someone checked my math in the "side menus" I've created. I did the calculations in a hurry.[/spoiler]

For Gunpowder:

[quote]
Gunpowder (5 turns); Archery (9 turns); [color="red"]Steam Power (--)[/color]
Gunpowder (7 turns); Archery (13 turns); Steam Power (21 turns)
Gunpowder (12 turns); Archery (14 turns) Steam Power (22 turns)
Gunpowder (16 turns); Archery (22 turns); Steam Power (28 turns)
[/quote]

For Archery:
[quote]
Archery (3 turns); Gunpowder (12 turns); Steam Power (18 turns)
Archery (4 turns); Gunpowder (15 turns); Steam Power (21 turns)
Archery (7 turns); Gunpowder (16 turns) Steam Power (27 turns)
Archery (11 turns); Gunpowder (16 turns); Steam Power (28 turns)
[/quote]

Now, what do these side menus say?

Each line in each side menu shows the number of turns it would take to adopt the techs if one particular tech were emphasized to a different degree. The side menu line "Archery (3 turns); Gunpowder (12 turns); Steam Power (18 turns)," for instance, says that if all available research were directed to Archery, that tech would be adopted in 3 turns, Gunpowder would be adopted in 12 turns, and Steam Power would be adopted in 18 turns. (In line with the assumptions in the above spoiler box, these calculations assume that, once Archery were adopted, research on subsequent turns would then be split evenly between Gunpowder and Steam Power; and once Gunpowder was adopted, all research would be directed to Steam Power.)

Now, in ChrTh's original proposal, the Automated Tech Advisor would suggest four rough ways to appropriate lightbulbs to tech research:

[quote][list]
[*]I have no time for such nonsense! (abandonment of the Tech; no lightbulbs are allotted to the Tech -- see After a Tech is Discovered below)
[*]While it's not what we need, keep an eye on it. (enough lightbulbs are allotted to the Tech so that it moves slowly towards adoption; a change in situation can cause it to become abandoned, though)
[*]This sounds promising, let's work on it (more lightbulbs are allotted towards it, adoption happens quicker and abandonment before adoption is highly unlikely)
[*]We must stop at nothing to master this! (most lightbulbs are allotted towards it, adoption happens quickly however it may result in the abandonment of other techs)
[/list][/quote]

The side menus are a slightly more extended version of the last three bulleted choices.

The first line in each side menu shows what would happen if the player devoted [b]all[/b] lightbulbs to that tech and let the others rot away with no investment. In the first case above, Steam Power would be abandoned because it would decay down to zero before the discovery of Archery freed up lightbulbs again.

The second line shows what would happen if the player parceled out enough lightbulbs to keep the others at an unchanged status, neither decaying nor advancing, while devoting the remainder to the prioritized tech.

The third line shows what would happen if the player devoted half of his lightbulbs to the prioritized tech and split the remaining lightbulbs among the rest of this researches.

The fourth line shows what would happen if the player split his lightbulbs evenly among all the techs being researched.

If the player chose he could go into a Research Screen and use ChrTh's sliders to fine-tune things more closely, but these four choices seem to me to capture the basic possibilities.

 

[ChrTh]

Ok, I've updated the original posts. Hopefully it'll make it easier for new viewers to the thread.

Mxzs: Good example. The only technical thing you might want to change is the negative modifier being the same for all three Techs; it might make a better example if you give Archery a positive modifier, Gunpowder a 0 or slightly negative modifier, and Steam Power a negative modifier.

 

[dh_epic]

Interface wise, I can almost imagine it. The "adoption" screen (for lack of better terms) shows every technology you have discovered. There are 5 rows.

5TH ROW: technologies you have discovered, but have decided to ignore for any useful application
4TH ROW: technologies you are merely maintaining
3RD ROW: technologies you are adopting
2ND ROW: technologies you are working hard to embrace
1ST ROW: technologies you have successfully embraced

Try an example. Let's say you had 25 beakers to allocate, and each tech takes at least a few beakers to maintain (with more advanced technologies requiring more to prevent them from slipping into abandonment).

(I'm pulling the rest of these numbers out of thin air.)

Mastered: Mining, Bronzeworking, Ironworking, Agriculture, Pottery, The Wheel, Fishing, Mysticism, Meditation
------------------------------------
Emphasizing: Sailing (+12 beakers per turn, 10 turns left)
Adopting: Priesthood (+5 beakers per turn, 20 turns left), Metal Casting (+7 beakers per turn, 23 turns left)
Maintaining: Writing (+1 beakers, stagnant)
------------------------------------
Discovered: Compass (5 turns before abandoning)

The main thing you do is bump technologies up and down. You might bump writing up, but that will divide your research for the other techs a bit more thinly. You might bump metal casting down, so the other technologies get more attention.

You can't bump anything into the "mastered" row. That happens when you finally finish adopting it.

You can bump stuff from the discovered row into the maintaining row, but you can't do the opposite. Once you've decided that you're going to juggle that ball, you're stuck with it until you've mastered it.


Interface aside, though, I think this raises some difficult questions...

(1) Unless you're ********, why would you ever end up in a situation where you're actually forgetting technologies? Wouldn't the worst thing that happens is that your research is slow and divided between a lot of technologies, which require a lot of research to merely maintain? How ridiculous is the idea of a dark age?

(2) How is the best option not to embrace one technology, while you maintain everything else? Isn't it most efficient to focus your efforts on one thing at a time?

Maybe I've missed something.

 

[ChrTh]

(1) Unless you're ********, why would you ever end up in a situation where you're actually forgetting technologies? Wouldn't the worst thing that happens is that your research is slow and divided between a lot of technologies, which require a lot of research to merely maintain? How ridiculous is the idea of a dark age?

Remember, it's not designed to be a frequent occurence on most difficulty levels. If you play the highest levels, though, your lightbulb penalty is higher and that could cause an issue.

In reality, Dark Ages shouldn't happen if the player isn't an idiot. However, if you get into a lot of wars (remember that war causes a penalty as well) or the tide turns against you (lose a couple cities and you lose those lightbulbs) or over expand (have to drop your research rate precipitously) and it's feasible.

The goal isn't to make it likely, just possible. Dark Ages/Technology Loss doesn't happen that often in the real world.

(2) How is the best option not to embrace one technology, while you maintain everything else? Isn't it most efficient to focus your efforts on one thing at a time?

Most efficient, yes. Best strategically? Not necessarily. Sometimes you'll want to embrace nothing so that you can adopt other technologies faster. Some technologies you'll want to embrace concurrently so that the units they provide aren't lost (say, Replaceable Parts and Steam Power for Ironclads)

 

[dh_epic]

Remember, it's not designed to be a frequent occurence on most difficulty levels. If you play the highest levels, though, your lightbulb penalty is higher and that could cause an issue.

In reality, Dark Ages shouldn't happen if the player isn't an idiot. However, if you get into a lot of wars (remember that war causes a penalty as well) or the tide turns against you (lose a couple cities and you lose those lightbulbs) or over expand (have to drop your research rate precipitously) and it's feasible.

The goal isn't to make it likely, just possible. Dark Ages/Technology Loss doesn't happen that often in the real world.

I'm still not seeing it. Imagine my capitol gets captured, and my civilization's research is now cut in half. Wouldn't I just discover technologies half as slow? (To use the numbers I was using above, I'm pulling 12 research instead of 15. Wouldn't Sailing get 6 beakers instead of 12, with metal casting getting 3 instead of 7, Priesthood getting 2 instead of 5, and Writing keeping its 1 for maintenance?)

I just don't see the risk of a dark age.

Most efficient, yes. Best strategically? Not necessarily. Sometimes you'll want to embrace nothing so that you can adopt other technologies faster. Some technologies you'll want to embrace concurrently so that the units they provide aren't lost (say, Replaceable Parts and Steam Power for Ironclads)

Try this on for size.

I want sailing as fast as possible, so I push priesthood down to a minimum. Sailing comes in 5 or 6 turns. Then I emphasize Priesthood, which I get in another 5. Hooray!

Or, I keep both Sailing and Priesthood at normal levels... now I'm not getting ANY technologies for 12 turns. But, at that point, I get priesthood and sailing back to back.

Isn't it better to get 1 thing in 6 turns and another thing in 6 turns, than to wait 12 turn for both? What do you gain by postponing that first thing 6 turns? You divide your research for nothing.

 

[ChrTh]

I'm still not seeing it. Imagine my capitol gets captured, and my civilization's research is now cut in half. Wouldn't I just discover technologies half as slow? (To use the numbers I was using above, I'm pulling 12 research instead of 15. Wouldn't Sailing get 6 beakers instead of 12, with metal casting getting 3 instead of 7, Priesthood getting 2 instead of 5, and Writing keeping its 1 for maintenance?)

I just don't see the risk of a dark age.

First: In the Discovery/Adoption model, Discovery isn't done by lightbulbs. So Discovering a Tech and Adopting a Tech are two different mechanics (hence the two threads)

Second: I don't see the negative modifiers coming into play in your examples.
Here's how it works:
Civ has 25 lightbulbs to give out per turn. 4 Techs:
Sailing +7 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no fishing, net +5
Metal Casting +8 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no iron or bronze working, -1 classical age, net +5
Priesthood: +5 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no polytheism, net +3
Writing: +5 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, net +4

So after the negative modifiers, your 25 lightbulbs becomes 17 lightbulbs.

Now, you go to war. Before anything else happens:
Sailing +7 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no fishing, -1 war, net +4
Metal Casting +8 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no iron or bronze working, -1 classical age, -1 war, net +4
Priesthood: +5 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no polytheism, -1 war, net +2
Writing: +5 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 war, net +3

So, now your 25 lightbulbs are now 13 lightbulbs.

You lose your capitol, which was providing 10 lightbulbs:
Sailing +4 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no fishing, -1 war, net +1
Metal Casting +4 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no iron or bronze working, -1 classical age, -1 war, net 0
Priesthood: +3 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 no polytheism, -1 war, net -1
Writing: +3 lightbulbs, -1 use it or lose it, -1 war, net +1

So now you're in danger of losing Priesthood; Metal Casting isn't going anywhere, and Sailing and Writing are hanging on for dear life.

Let's just say that if you survive, you better hope the techs you discover next are fishing, one of the metal workings, or polytheism. If you next discover The Wheel, you're not going to be able to support it.

Try this on for size.

I want sailing as fast as possible, so I push priesthood down to a minimum. Sailing comes in 5 or 6 turns. Then I emphasize Priesthood, which I get in another 5. Hooray!

Or, I keep both Sailing and Priesthood at normal levels... now I'm not getting ANY technologies for 12 turns. But, at that point, I get priesthood and sailing back to back.

Isn't it better to get 1 thing in 6 turns and another thing in 6 turns, than to wait 12 turn for both? What do you gain by postponing that first thing 6 turns? You divide your research for nothing.

Unless in turn 3 you discover Iron Working. See, here's where it gets tricky. You're spiking Sailing and keeping Priesthood low, but then Iron Working shows up. Do you abandon Priesthood, abandon Iron Working, or stop putting all your lightbulbs into Sailing?

Conversely, if you're dividing equally, you can work all three slowly, or work Iron Working quickly while letting Priesthood and Sailing fall a little bit (since you're Ancient Age it doesn't matter if they hit 0 since you haven't adopted them) or hang even.

That's where the strategy with the division of tech research comes into play. By default, the Automated Tech Advisor would balance them so that when a new Tech shows up, the first scenario doesn't occur. It's only when you push a Tech that you have a risk. If neither Sailing or Priesthood are important enough to get in 6 turns, you might as well let them both take 12.

 

[Commander Bello]

I have to admit that I haven't read the whole thread very carefully and therefore just may have missed it (if so, please disregard this posting).

But I see a main problem:
Playability.

Your system sounds interesting for a "hardcore" human player. It doesn't sound that appealing to an occasional player (think of the three pages in the manual, he would have to read before he understands).
And finally, I do not see how the AI would come along with it. Most probably, it would have to evenly distribute its beakers to the techs researched and adopted.
This could turn out to make the AI behave in a very unflexible way, thus leading to the problem of big bonusses for the AI (at least at higher difficulty levels), of which many players are just tired.

Thoughts?

 

[ChrTh]

Well the occasional player could just let the Automated Tech Advisor do everything; considering he or she probably won't play Deity, they should be able to adopt Techs at a reasonable clip without any real input or worries on their part. (And there's always the Classic Tech Tree option)

The AI would work similarly. Certain AIs might have an inclination towards branches, but ultimately they would take a balanced approach. However, I don't see a need for bonuses for the AI at higher difficulty levels. The only thing I would do is restrict the Techs the AI could Discover (that is, it could only discover Techs in the current age and the next age); a player might be able to pop Steam Power in 1 AD, but the AI never would. A player on Deity would have to make serious choices about whether or not they want to try to utilize an advanced tech, but there's no reason to make the AI do so; therefore the AI gets the advantage in the sense that it's following a natural tech advancement without having to worry about risk-taking. But the advantage is nullified if the player plays it safe (i.e. emulates the AI)

Y'all have the remember what I said earlier:

The purpose of the adoption system is two fold:
1) Historical flavor [allows advanced discoveries and loss of techs/dark ages]
2) Since the attached discovery system removes a lot of prerequisites, the adoption system is there to prevent a player from getting a lot of advanced techs early in the game. Mathematics has no prereqs, Monarchy has only a couple of influencers, etc. If you don't have some sort of adoption system, then you have to make the discovery phase more entangled with prereqs otherwise the luckiest player (in terms of tech pops) wins.

 

[dh_epic]

I actually think it's quite playable. The player allocates their research between categories. That's just another tech slider. As the discoveries start to occur, the player juggles how much effort to go into mastering them: that's like the tech tree, except you're setting priorities between technologies rather than choosing a single one.

I think I understand the first part, ChrTh, that your civilization can be put under enough pressure to lose a technology. That there's a lot of areas penalties can come from.

I still don't understand the second part, though. If I'm emaphasizing Tech A, and keeping techs B C and D at bare minimum. If tech E shows up, can't I just keep that at bare minimum too? Isn't it still fastest to squeeze results from A first, rather than dividing my effort between two techs and going twice as long with no mastery?

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
The AI would work similarly. Certain AIs might have an inclination towards branches, but ultimately they would take a balanced approach. However, I don't see a need for bonuses for the AI at higher difficulty levels. The only thing I would do is restrict the Techs the AI could Discover (that is, it could only discover Techs in the current age and the next age); a player might be able to pop Steam Power in 1 AD, but the AI never would. A player on Deity would have to make serious choices about whether or not they want to try to utilize an advanced tech, but there's no reason to make the AI do so; therefore the AI gets the advantage in the sense that it's following a natural tech advancement without having to worry about risk-taking. But the advantage is nullified if the player plays it safe (i.e. emulates the AI)[...]

And that is exactly what I am referring to.
If you grant the (human) player the chance to get Steam Power in 1 AD, there has to be a benefit for it. Otherwise your whole conception would be meaningless.

So, we may assume that the experienced human player get Steam Power in 1 AD. Now, how will you enable the AI to counter this?

This is, where your proposal seems to lack answers.
Any conception to be implemented into the game has to be manageable by the AI as well, otherwise it would be meaningless or even corrupt the game.

You wouldn't allow the human player the access to Cavalry either, when the AI only would have Axes and Spears to counter, right?
Or, if you would, then the AI would need excessive bonuses to counter this obvious approach of the human player.

Therefore, I still think my concern is valid: Your conception is appealing and interesting, but it seems not to be designed for the AI (or vice versa).

 

[ChrTh]

I still don't understand the second part, though. If I'm emaphasizing Tech A, and keeping techs B C and D at bare minimum. If tech E shows up, can't I just keep that at bare minimum too? Isn't it still fastest to squeeze results from A first, rather than dividing my effort between two techs and going twice as long with no mastery?

Remember that Discovery, in this system, is independent of Research. When tech E shows up you don't have any extra lightbulbs than before it showed up. Where are you going to get the lightbulbs to keep it at a bare minimum? You either take it from A -- meaning less emphasis on A -- or you take it from B, C, and/or D, potentially risking those techs. If you're balanced, you have A, B, C, and D all with some moderate amount, adding E lessens each a little bit but you're still pushing forward on all fronts.

And that is exactly what I am referring to.
If you grant the (human) player the chance to get Steam Power in 1 AD, there has to be a benefit for it. Otherwise your whole conception would be meaningless.

Ideally the Tech Tree would have every Tech add some benefit to the player. In the case of Steam Power, I'd make it so it gives +50% movement for naval units (Galleys now move 3). But the player would not have the ability to build Ironclads, because the Prereqs for Ironclads include Metal Casting and Replaceable Parts (since the Techs have much fewer Prereqs in the system, the Units will have more).

So, we may assume that the experienced human player get Steam Power in 1 AD. Now, how will you enable the AI to counter this?

This is, where your proposal seems to lack answers.
Any conception to be implemented into the game has to be manageable by the AI as well, otherwise it would be meaningless or even corrupt the game.

No, it doesn't. The system is self-managing. Steam Power in 1 AD will be expensive. Not just in research costs, but in the fact that while you're trying to adopt Steam Power you have to dedicate most(all?) your lightbulbs there, leaving none for Code of Laws or Currency. Sure, you may end up with an Industrial Age Tech, but your lack of Middle Age Techs is going to hurt you in the game.

Frankly, I would think it always would be in the best interest of the Deity player never to go for a Tech two ages or more advanced of your current age.

You wouldn't allow the human player the access to Cavalry either, when the AI only would have Axes and Spears to counter, right?
Or, if you would, then the AI would need excessive bonuses to counter this obvious approach of the human player.

Therefore, I still think my concern is valid: Your conception is appealing and interesting, but it seems not to be designed for the AI (or vice versa).

First, the game allows this already at lower levels (although it is being nerfed with the introduction of the Cuirassers in BTS). Second, it goes back to the idea mentioned above that Units would have more prerequisites than they currently have. Cavalry would be Rifling + Military Tradition (ignoring HBR for a sec), both Industrial Age Techs, and Rifling would have Gunpowder as a Renaissance Prereq. The odds of popping one of those Techs in the Classical Age is tiny. The odds of popping two is miniscule. The odds of popping three is almost non existent. And anyway, the attempt to adopt all three would cripple you.

But it is a valid concern. Playtesting for balance is necessary. But again, the system is self-managing. In fact, since the player has less control over which Techs he can research (goodbye every beeline or slingshot), I think you might be able to give the AI fewer built-in advantages.

 

[Mxzs]

dh_epic has spotted one of the places I'm going with this:

How is the best option not to embrace one technology, while you maintain everything else? Isn't it most efficient to focus your efforts on one thing at a time?

Maybe I've missed something.

I see the problem too: there is an obvious optimal strategy to pursue when trying to balance the adoption of techs. I think it leads to some other issues. (Not "problems" of the sort that would cripple ChrTh's proposal, but which could diminish it.)

Recapitulation, including the sample choice menus I constructed for an earlier post are in the spoiler box:

Spoiler :

Let's picture a player in the middle of the game. He's just gotten through moving a Scout or Mining a hill or flipping the bird at Alexander, and his Science Advisor pops up in a box:

"Sire, we have just discovered an amazing new technique called 'Steam Power.' Shall our wise men see if anything useful can be done with it?"

• "I have no time for such nonsense."
• "Have them look into it."

If he hits the first option, he hears no more about it. If he hits the second, though, a menu appears that is similar to the "What would you like to research next?" menu that appears in Civ4 after you discover a tech. This screen, though, displays the techs you've discovered (in ChrTh's sense of "discovered") and are trying to adopt. And it would say something like this:

Which tech shall we prioritize?
Archery
[img] Gunpowder
[img] Steam Power[/quote]

When he moves the cursor over one of these choices, a side menu (like the "Details + Sid's Tips" side menu that currently pops up) appears. Inside that side menu would be a list of clickable choices. The side-menu next to "Steam Power" would look like this:

[quote]
Steam Power (10 turns); [color="red"]Archery (--)[/color]; Gunpowder (17 turns)
Steam Power (15 turns); Archery (21 turns) Gunpowder (24 turns)
Steam Power (23 turns); Archery (17 turns) Gunpowder (22 turns)
Steam Power (28 turns); Archery (11 turns); Gunpowder (16 turns)
[/quote]

For Gunpowder:

[quote]
Gunpowder (5 turns); Archery (9 turns); [color="red"]Steam Power (--)[/color]
Gunpowder (7 turns); Archery (13 turns); Steam Power (21 turns)
Gunpowder (12 turns); Archery (14 turns) Steam Power (22 turns)
Gunpowder (16 turns); Archery (22 turns); Steam Power (28 turns)
[/quote]

For Archery:
[quote]
Archery (3 turns); Gunpowder (12 turns); Steam Power (18 turns)
Archery (4 turns); Gunpowder (15 turns); Steam Power (21 turns)
Archery (7 turns); Gunpowder (16 turns) Steam Power (27 turns)
Archery (11 turns); Gunpowder (16 turns); Steam Power (28 turns)
[/quote]

Now, what do these side menus say?

Each line in each side menu shows the number of turns it would take to adopt the techs if one particular tech were emphasized to a different degree. The side menu line "Archery (3 turns); Gunpowder (12 turns); Steam Power (18 turns)," for instance, says that if all available research were directed to Archery, that tech would be adopted in 3 turns, Gunpowder would be adopted in 12 turns, and Steam Power would be adopted in 18 turns. (In line with the assumptions in the above spoiler box, these calculations assume that, once Archery were adopted, research on subsequent turns would then be split evenly between Gunpowder and Steam Power; and once Gunpowder was adopted, all research would be directed to Steam Power.)

[/spoiler]

Let's think about this from the perspective of you, the player. Suppose you decide that you really want Archery as your next tech. What's the best way to divide your research resources?

Assuming you don't want to lose the new "Steam Power" discovery, the most rational distribution is to put enough resources in the other techs to keep them from decaying while throwing everything else into Archery. Not only will you get Archery sooner, you'll get the other techs more quickly than if you divided your resources more evenly. In fact, the more evenly you distribute your resources, the slower you make your adoptions! The same thing holds if you decide to pursue "Gunpowder": your optimal strategy is to keep the others from decaying while putting everything else into adopting that tech.

This shouldn't be surprising; it's the same kind of effect that makes the idea of "multiple production queues" in cities a non-starter. All other things being equal, if you divide your resources among multiple targets you will get all your goals in close succession, but will get them later; but if you target each one in succession, you will reach your last goal no later than if you had divided your resources [i]and[/i] you will have reached and can enjoy your other goals sooner. It's not quite a case of "If you chase two rabbits you will lose them both," but almost.

Now, it's true that the "Steam Power" entry presents a more complex case: there the choice is between adopting Steam Power in the mid-term while getting the others in the near-term, and getting Steam Power in the near-term while getting the others in the mid-term. This is because Steam Power is so expensive (and has such few initial resources) relative to the others. But this example represents a skewing away from the norm. There's no way to predict how common such situations might be, but in a technical sense they represent a departure from the standard pattern and not the standard pattern itself. Situations like this will normally be an [i]exception[/i] and not the rule.

Leaving aside situations like that of "Steam Power," what are the player's [i]real[/i] choices when he gets the Advisor message "Which tech shall we prioritize?" This first question—"Which tech shall we prioritize?"—is a good question that demands a real choice of the player. But asking him how he will distribute his resources when there is [i]an optimal distribution[/i] is to give him a fake choice. Do you want your tech fast or slow? (It will cost the same either way.) It's like Eddie Izzard's "Cake or Death?" routine. Who wouldn't choose cake?

The interface I've described only makes plain what would otherwise be hidden in a screen that distributed research resources via a bunch of sliders. You could hide the fact that there is an optimal distribution by constructing a screen like ChrTh originally proposed. But why would you want to hide it from the player?

If this is right—if the only real choice the player has to make is "Which tech shall I prioritize?"—then [i]in this spot[/i] the new research model doesn't really add anything to the game as it is currently structured. Both the current game and this proposal ask the player to pick a tech to prioritize (if he chooses to divide his resources evenly he will typically end up in the worst possible situation); the difference is that this proposal adds a second step that asks a question that really need not be answered. It should be within the competence of the program to distribute the resources automatically in the optimal way when there is an optimal distribution.

Once you see this, you can see that the game also already has a feature that lets the player progress toward other techs while concentrating on one. After you research Tech A, you usually find that Techs B and C (and the others) have also grown closer. I'm not sure how this works in Civ, but the effect is very similar to what has been proposed: You choose a tech to spend research money on adopting (that is, reaching a point where you can use the units, buildings, and effects it bestows), and the program distributes the research so that most of it goes toward the tech you've prioritized while spreading some of it to the others. It doesn't allow you to change that distribution, largely (I hypothesize) because there will almost always be one optimal distribution. In effect, the game chooses a distribution somewhere between the second and third choices that I suggested: a minimal amount to keep the alternate techs advancing while putting the rest toward the chosen tech. While the mathematical model that makes these distributions might be quite different from the one ChrTh proposes, I'd bet in practice a player would not notice the difference.

Basically, when it comes to "research" (that is, to distributing resources among techs that you've discovered and are trying to adopt) ChrTh's proposal, it seems to me, only adds two new twists:

First, it adds the possibility that techs might decay. As I've asked before, though, isn't this a feature that Civ once had but did away with? Once upon a time, IIRC, you weren't always able to research techs to which you had the prerequisites; sometimes they appeared and sometimes they disappeared from the research menu. From the player's point of view, the new system would be a kind of return to the old one, only with the twist that he himself could choose which techs would disappear. I'm not sure this would strike most players as an improvement. At least, it seems to be a feature most people were glad to see disappear, and I doubt they would like to see it back whatever historical justification you gave it. ("See, it's not just randomly disappearing. You just didn't support it with enough research to keep it as a live option." To which the inevitable response would be: "Why are you punishing me for not having enough money to spend on the discoveries your game is giving me?")

Second, the new system also allows the player much more control over how his research funds are divided. But given that there will usually be a best distribution, is this a real choice? And to the extent that it is, is it a choice that empowers the player in an interesting way, or is it merely an opportunity for micro-management? I would hypothesize that there are "optimal" research paths hidden in Civ 4 as it is currently structured, in the sense that researching Archery (5 turns) before Monotheism (35 turns) will get you both quicker than Monotheism before Archery; but that Civ 4 hides such facts in the interest of uncluttered gameplay.

If you take those twists out—if you don't let discovered techs disappear and if you let the program calculate the best distribution of research resources after the player has chosen a tech to prioritize, what is left of the new "research" model?

The advisor pops up and tells you that you've made a new discovery and asks you which tech you want to work hardest on adopting. After a some turns, you're told that the tech has been adopted and you can begin using its benefits. Except for the substitution of the words "discovery" and "adoption," how is it different from the current game?

[b](Please note: This does not address the different way that techs are "discovered" or the process/concept of "embracing" them. I'm only talking about the middle portion of the model.)[/b]

 

[Mxzs]

And that is exactly what I am referring to.
If you grant the (human) player the chance to get Steam Power in 1 AD, there has to be a benefit for it. Otherwise your whole conception would be meaningless.

I think the general reply (ChrTh has given a specific example) is that each "advanced" tech would carry a minimal gain but that the ability to get the large gains would presuppose getting a lot of these "advanced" techs. They would accumulate like modules, each one licensing an incremental improvement leading to bigger and better units. Think of the progression from Ironclad through Destroyer to Battleship late in the current game, but extended backwards in time so that it starts earlier.

 

[Mxzs]

Remember that Discovery, in this system, is independent of Research. When tech E shows up you don't have any extra lightbulbs than before it showed up. Where are you going to get the lightbulbs to keep it at a bare minimum? You either take it from A -- meaning less emphasis on A -- or you take it from B, C, and/or D, potentially risking those techs. If you're balanced, you have A, B, C, and D all with some moderate amount, adding E lessens each a little bit but you're still pushing forward on all fronts.

This is one reason I added the "Please Note" disclaimer at the end. Discovering a new tech does not itself alter the basic interface ("Sire, we've found something new, what shall we concentrate on?") or the optimal strategy. The optimal strategy would still be to concentrate on Tech A, even if it means that you progress toward it more slowly than if you hadn't pick up Tech E.

However, the fact that things can slow down significantly will give the player choices about whether or not to accept a new tech to his list of "discoveries." I consider this part of the "Discovery" portion of the proposal, because the discovery process is something the player has no control over (unlike in the current game): He doesn't know what he'll get, and he might not know when he'll get it.

Still, I'm not sure why a player would ever say "No, let's not research that" when the advisor pops up. First, a marginal slowdown in tech research is probably a cost worth paying just to have more options. Second, the conservative strategy is to hang on to everything that comes your way; who knows when or if the newly discovered tech will pop up again? Third, you can always drop it later (though this is the kind of Sophie's Choice situation the player may well curse the game designer over).

EDIT: I don't mean to triple post; damn the "edit" and "quote" buttons for looking so much alike.