A New Tech Tree Mechanic for Civilization 5

[dh_epic]

Give credit to Wodan. I think it might even be good to give only one mastery, but 4 or 5 discoveries.

Another thing, I think those early techs especially are going to need circumstantial bonuses. If you max out your population, those health and happiness techs need to come (in a way, it's a reward). If you build a few warriors and declare war early, those unit-enabling techs need to come. More coastal cities will encourage sailing. Whatever these bonuses are, they need to be simple, though.

 

[thenooblet22]

ChrTh, if you ever get a working prototype/mod, I'll help test I'm sad to say I can't help much in actually developing it, sorry

 

[ChrTh]

ChrTh, if you ever get a working prototype/mod, I'll help test I'm sad to say I can't help much in actually developing it, sorry

Oh lord no, I'm no developer. Basically I'm playing a normal game and entering data into a spreadsheet to simulate the system and see what the results are. I know what my limits are ...

 

[Mxzs]

It sounds like it's moved to the point where ChrTh's simulations would be needed to spot problems. Which is a good thing! It means the new system has a lot of potential.

I also like the idea of responding to what you're given, but making sure the essentials are in place is a tricky thing. I noticed it back when I was messing with "techs as sets." I didn't work up a full simulation, but playing with a bunch of cards showing techs, units, buildings, terrain, etc., did show me how easy it is to put a beginning civ in a hole that's impossible to climb out of.

I'd be interested to see what else the simulation shows you, ChrTh.

 

[Wodan]

I think the Civ Traits are a good thing (tm Martha Stewart) and I'd hate to see them go.

I didn't suggest getting rid of them, I suggested post-poning the choice of leader until your initial tech path behavior is exhibited by you in-game.

There will be mathematical functions for Discovery success % and Mastery success %. If the function is such that the first couple of ones in the game are trivial and come pretty much immediately, then you could make the "leaderless" period be as short as you wanted.

As for starting Techs, I am seeing an early problem in the game I'm playing ...

Perhaps the solution is something similar to what dh_epic said: give everyone Mastery of 2 Techs, and Discovery of 2 Techs ... and just make sure the 4 Techs are base Worker Techs?

Why not remove some worker actions from the tech tree? Some people in various threads have always complained that you have to "research" hunting and planting crops, and that you do this in 4000BC when in reality humanity has known how to feed itself way back to 10000BC if not earlier. (Depends on if we evolved, aliens dropped us off, or when we crash landed from the previous human interstellar empire; if you're creationist then dunno maybe the 4000BC thing does make sense. I'm confusing my own point, should shut up now.)

Wodan

 

[ChrTh]

I didn't suggest getting rid of them, I suggested post-poning the choice of leader until your initial tech path behavior is exhibited by you in-game.

There will be mathematical functions for Discovery success % and Mastery success %. If the function is such that the first couple of ones in the game are trivial and come pretty much immediately, then you could make the "leaderless" period be as short as you wanted.

I don't see it happening. I think it would be interesting if you master Hunting and Mining first and the game selects Frederick the Great as your leader, but I think too many players like choosing a specific leader right off the back, whether they're setting up an SG variant or a GOTM or wanting to run roughshod over the pangaea with Keshiks.

Why not remove some worker actions from the tech tree? Some people in various threads have always complained that you have to "research" hunting and planting crops, and that you do this in 4000BC when in reality humanity has known how to feed itself way back to 10000BC if not earlier.

Well, I pretty much decided every worker action will be available with Discovery, not Mastery. But in the end I think this gets lumped into what I'm calling the "Start of Game Question", i.e., which/how many techs should a Civ start with, whether they should be mastered/discovered, etc. Frankly, I don't think there's an answer. The system would have to be modeled and running and playtested countless times to find the best balance. So the question will remain open as long as Firaxis isn't mailing me checks

(Depends on if we evolved, aliens dropped us off, or when we crash landed from the previous human interstellar empire; if you're creationist then dunno maybe the 4000BC thing does make sense. I'm confusing my own point, should shut up now.)
Wodan

The sun rises on the year 4000 BC. Since time immemorial four years ago, the German people have a lived a nomadic life...

 

[ChrTh]

Fun with the simulation: played a couple more turns at lunch today. I discovered the first Tech: Writing. The catch: apparently I'm alone on the landmass! So whether Open Borders comes with Discovery or Mastery, it's useless for me. On the other hand, Libraries (which I imagine would come with Mastery) would be cool if I wanted to run an SE. If I abandon it, it'll reduce my chances of examining Alphabet (I don't know it's already being examined) ... but since there are no other Civs nearby, Tech Trading would be useless anyhow.

Since I am alone, I think my goal should be REX. That will require Worker techs. That means abandoning Writing and hoping I get Pottery examined in the Economics branch (and still hoping -- fruitlessly, by the way -- that I'm examining Animal Husbandry in the Civilization branch).

 

[dh_epic]

To me, the early technology "hunting" doesn't mean you invented hunting. It means you mastered hunting -- you now do it in an organized way such that you've designated a portion of your society as "hunters" and a portion of your society as doing other things. Same thing with mining. We've been picking at rocks a long time, but only a few thousands years ago did we actually designate a group of people who would do the mining for our settlement.

That actually coincides with the bonuses. You still get hammers from hills without the Mining tech. You still get food from deer without the Hunting tech. You know how to mine and hunt. But only when you master mining and hunting can you actually have your specialized worker unit establish an organized infrastructure on a tile.

Maybe all the more reason to give early discovery of those original techs, without mastery.

 

[ChrTh]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present, the one, the only ...

THE TECH DISCOVERY AND MASTERY SCREEN

This is the only screen you need to use the new system (abandoning Techs is done by right-clicking on the Tech in the Tech Tree screen and selecting Abandon). There will also be a chart for the What You Do aspect of the game with all the other charts.

I apologize for the lack of artistry, but there's only so much I can do in Word and Paint.

Some notes:
The Discovery/Mastery slider is Maintenance Sensitive. If you have Discovered 5 Ancient Age Techs (and thus require 5 to Maintain 4/Master 1) you can not raise Discovery to 100%. Heck, if you're only generating 5 , you won't be able to raise it above 0%. And if you drop below 5, you'd receive a pop-up stating you have to Abandon a Tech.

Maintenance Cost is Static, in that changing the slider won't have an effect on it. However, changing the Mastery Tech can have an effect (since a Classical Age Tech has a higher Maintenance Cost) and the slider will auto-reduce if it has to. For example:

You're mastering Iron Working while Maintaining Polytheism and you are generating 10 a turn. You require 2 minimum so you can set the slider at maximum 80%. If you decide to Maintain Iron Working (4 gold) and Master Polytheism, you require 5 and the slider will auto-reduce to 50%.

The Tech Emphasis Sliders will also auto-adjust so that it always adds up to 100% (sometimes it might not adjust the way you want it to, e.g. raising Manufacturing to 40% may cause Civilization to drop to 10% when you wanted Discovery to, so make sure you check that you're happy with the current percentages for all of them).

Let me know if you have any thoughts/questions/criticisms. I considered the possibility of displaying the actual % odds on a branch, but I don't think I want to make it obvious to the player how his builds/etc. are driving his research.

 

[dh_epic]

I get it. So the left side is how you emphasize your discovery, and the right side is how you emphasize your mastery (more like the traditional tech tree).

I basically like it. I might even simplify the discovery mechanism, allowing you to choose an emphasis or two -- instead of setting individual sliders.

 

[ChrTh]

I think you need to keep the branch sliders. We're already taking away some measure of control from the player -- a measure that's been there since day one. Anything that makes him* feel like he hasn't completely surrendered to chance will make him feel better about the new system.

I've also given some thought to the early game, and I think I have an idea about the Worker Techs: they can be no maintenance. Therefore, you start off with, say, Pottery discovered. You can choose to master it if you want (for Granaries), but if not, it won't cost you anything to maintain.

*I recognize there are female players. My usage of male pronouns does not denote that I do not believe this applies to them.

 

[dh_epic]

We're getting down to the nuances of balance issues that really are better tested than talked about. That means that the fundamental concept has become pretty well defined!

 

[thenooblet22]

I want to throw in my comments into this thread even though I've only read half way through it. These are my problems (and correct me if I'm wrong or you already answered this because I've only digested 3 pages).

The Discovery rate is a system based on percentage of chance determined by variables or penalties of how you play (wars, expansion, infrastructure, events, etc), correct? However, can you list examples of what the player could do to influence each branch differently (like war for military techs, but what about the other 5). If you cannot influence each branch yourself, then that's taking away the strategy of the game. I know realword technologies occured by accident, but if the player has no input on it, then its no longer a game but a simulator.

My second question is, how would this mechanism regulate the actual rate you recieve these discoveries. This would ultimately determine the pace of the game, but, again, if it's random then you defeat the purpose of strategy, if it is determined by number of turns then you defeat the purpose of a new flexible tech tree. So, in conclusion, what variables could the player do to speed or decrease this rate in general (give more a more specific answer than just "wars or peace")?

Again, many of these things might have changed, so correct me as you please. To be honest, I don't want to read the last 3 pages I've missed unless I'm really, really bored.

 

[ChrTh]

@thenooblet22: Wait a couple days, I'll be ending this thread and starting a new one with this system totally revamped with all the stuff you're too lazy to read

 

[thenooblet22]

@thenooblet22: Wait a couple days, I'll be ending this thread and starting a new one with this system totally revamped with all the stuff you're too lazy to read

But can you still answer my questions? The Discovery system is the only thing making me skeptical about this new design

 

[ChrTh]

I want to throw in my comments into this thread even though I've only read half way through it. These are my problems (and correct me if I'm wrong or you already answered this because I've only digested 3 pages).

The Discovery rate is a system based on percentage of chance determined by variables or penalties of how you play (wars, expansion, infrastructure, events, etc), correct? However, can you list examples of what the player could do to influence each branch differently (like war for military techs, but what about the other 5). If you cannot influence each branch yourself, then that's taking away the strategy of the game. I know realword technologies occured by accident, but if the player has no input on it, then its no longer a game but a simulator.

There're two factors: what you do and what you want. Each contributes 50% overall. So within its 50%, the player can allocate discovery possibility among the six branches. Max 50%, Min 10%. So the player has a strong measure of control there.

For the what you do, it's basically a matter of what you do with the techs you have. Building cottages, granaries, roads, and markets will all influence discovery in the Economics branch (because techs in this branch allow you to build them). Building forges, mines, and spears will all influence discovery in the Manufacturing branch (there is no military branch). And so on.

My second question is, how would this mechanism regulate the actual rate you recieve these discoveries. This would ultimately determine the pace of the game, but, again, if it's random then you defeat the purpose of strategy, if it is determined by number of turns then you defeat the purpose of a new flexible tech tree. So, in conclusion, what variables could the player do to speed or decrease this rate in general (give more a more specific answer than just "wars or peace")?

It's random, in the sense that you can Discover a tech in turn 20, then turn 24, and then not another one until turn 60. is allocated to a specific branch each turn, so you're essentially researching 6 techs at once, but research is being distributed sporadically (from the perspective of a specific tech).

As for the "purpose of the strategy", well, the system eliminates beelining and slingshots. Instead, it gives the player to ability to forge his or her strategy based on the techs discovered, rather than research techs based on a preordained strategy. Instead of 'let there be light', it's 'hey look, we got light! what should we do with it?'

 

[dh_epic]

ChrTh, I'd like to see discovery influenced not just by specializing (what you do) but necessity (what you need). For example, rather than having lots of farms or grocers lead to the discovery of medicine... being in a situation with lots of disease should lead to the discovery of medicine.

Mind you, that could get hard to balance. You'd essentially be rewarding the player for problems. "Don't get too healthy, or you'll never discover medicine". Still, this might actually be a good thing, since a discovery model based on necessity would actually fill in the player's strategic needs.

Food for thought.

 

[ChrTh]

dh_epic, not a bad idea. The only problem is I don't think the branches are precise enough for something like that. For example, say Medicine is in the Civilization branch. If unhealthiness led to more of a Civilization slant, sure you'd get Medicine eventually ... but you'd also get Civil Service. I'm sure anyone could rationalize why that makes sense on a historical or literary basis, but on a gameplay basis it doesn't work imo.

Now, you could create some sort of independent tech group that you have no control of, the techs appearing truly based on necessity. But now the system is getting complicated and arguments over which techs should be in there or control of getting the techs would arise.

 

[thenooblet22]

It's random, in the sense that you can Discover a tech in turn 20, then turn 24, and then not another one until turn 60. is allocated to a specific branch each turn, so you're essentially researching 6 techs at once, but research is being distributed sporadically (from the perspective of a specific tech).

As for the "purpose of the strategy", well, the system eliminates beelining and slingshots. Instead, it gives the player to ability to forge his or her strategy based on the techs discovered, rather than research techs based on a preordained strategy. Instead of 'let there be light', it's 'hey look, we got light! what should we do with it?'

But if the discovery rate random, then you will basically give an unfair advantage between civilizations. That is historically accurate, but it isn't a strategy game. I know you aim for a system based on how you use your Discoveries, but the Discovery rate itself should be reworked and thought out. My suggestion would be similar to how you approached the technology branch question I had eariler. 50% of the rate would be controlled by the player in a Science (or Discovery) output slider, like the one in Civilization IV. The other 50% would be deternmined by a civilization's "stability" (look at Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod). This way, the actually rate of discoveries would be fair strategically and balanced: the amount of gold you put into the Science (or Discovery) slider would be little in the beginning (just like Civilization IV) and I doubt a player would be able to perfectly stabilize his civilization early game. I know the concept of "stability" isn't a Civilization feature, but it would help solve this problem while adding its own gameplay (it works great in Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod).

 

[ChrTh]

I just finished Turn 60 of my playtest, and frankly I'm getting concerned about its playability. It's added a layer of micromanagement (the Discovery/Mastery slider), which, while adding complexity, doesn't add any fun.

Neither Alphabet or Iron Working have popped yet, and I probably could've beelined either and gotten them already -- and they'd be mastered, not simply discovered.

I guess a solution could be to reduce the number of required to discover/master a tech ... but even still, implementing a new system seems like a lot of work just to have a 1% chance of popping Guilds in the Classical Age.

I'm going to take a break from the playtesting and ponder it from on top of the mountain for a little bit.