A New Tech Tree Mechanic for Civilization 5

[dh_epic]

It's healthy that you can take a step back, ChrTh. You don't want to get caught up in the whirlwind of hype or "it's my idea" that you can't find ways to improve it.

Just remember what got us here in the first place. Part of it is the 1% chance of popping guilds in the classical age -- and the possibility you might abandon advanced knowledge early. Part of it is also, hopefully, making more sense / limitations on what you can trade to other civilizations. But those are almost side bonuses...

The big key, to me, is that your actual game play influences what you discover. This is harder than it sounds. It needs to be done in a way that is rewarding, and allows the player a certain degree of control. That's where the fun comes from -- popping medicine almost becomes like a quest to reach a high population, while popping industrialism becomes like a quest to build as many factories as possible. Keep in mind that this fun needs to compete with the fun that you have now: simply clicking on "industrialism".

 

[ChrTh]

I just lost a really long post because of the stupid banner ads throwing a virus at me and causing the window to shut down.

I'll try again tomorrow.

 

[thenooblet22]

I just lost a really long post because of the stupid banner ads throwing a virus at me and causing the window to shut down.

I'll try again tomorrow.

Ooo, I hate when that happens. Anyway, what say you on my previous post though?

 

[ChrTh]

Ooo, I hate when that happens. Anyway, what say you on my previous post though?

you'll have to wait until I get off the mountain. I'm pondering up here.

 

[ChrTh]

The problem is choice

Why I went up the Mountain

The journey began with this post, as I began to contemplate whether a modified Tech Tree would allow for Interesting Decisions. It was in the midst of this contemplation that I discerned a high level of micro-management in the early game during my playtesting. So not only was the Interesting Decision factor weighing on my mind, but also the Gameplay factor.

Civilization is a game first and a historical simulation second. This is important to remember -- oftentimes the suggestions one sees are those that will add more historical versimilitude to the game without any consideration as to whether it will be Fun for the player. This was my mistake with Abandonment.

Abandonment has existed in my musings since the beginning for two reasons: one for its historical reality, and two for its ability to allow non-traditional tech leaps.
See Abandonment to me was the coolest idea because of its historical basis; Civs lose technology, Dark ages occur, etc. etc. Modeling a system where poor play or military setbacks by the player (or the AI) resulted in Tech loss was a worthwhile goal in my opinion. It added a flavor the current rigid tech tree could never accomplish.

It also allowed a far less rigid tech tree. Right now the reason you can't research Steam Power in advance is because early Ironclads would confer a huge advantage on the player doing so. IF, however, a system was developed that required the player to make sacrifices in order to do so, it would be feasible. That's what we did, essentially. It took a couple iterations, but the 'final' product allowed a flexible tech tree and the opportunity to make tech leaps. There was a necessary balancing effect caused by abandonment (it allowed you to reject the advanced tech if you didn't want to fall behind elsewhere, or to lose other Techs to focus on the advanced ones) and the discernment between Discovery and Mastery, where the latter gave you more impact at a higher cost than simply Discovery. It seemed like the system was well-fabricated: advanced techs, flexible tech tree, Interesting Decisions, the addition of more strategy within the Tech Tree itself, historical reality.

But then the Gameplay Factor came in, and I knew the system was not viable. The reason comes down to Abandonment.

See Abandonment itself is not really an Interesting Decision. It's an annoyance, especially since in 99% of the games, it will end up being temporary -- so you're not even providing the player with a strategic "Sophie's Choice". Now, the pursuit of an advanced tech may prove to be an Interesting Decision, but never Abandonment. Abandonment, for all of its balancing effect and historical reality, was not fun. Adjusting just a simple slider to maintain Techs in the early game was a chore. It's micromanagement at the worst part of the game for it. It's bad enough we took away the ability of the player to choose the Tech he or she can research, now we're creating situations where they lose the Tech. There's no way, shape, or form this could be fun.

So the first thing I decided was that Abandonment needed to be Abandoned. Without Abandonment, there's no need for Maintenance. Ergo, we've removed the Micromanagement aspect and we've restored Fun to the game. However, now we've created an imbalance.

So that's why I went up the mountain. To rectify the imbalance caused by the removal of Abandonment.

My only goal at the top of the mountain was to solve the problem; and if the solution was dissolution, then so be it. But as I was climbing up, I noticed that I was moving vertical to the ground--I was gaining a third dimension. The solution seemed on the tip of my tongue ... or the top of the mountain.


The Battle of the Tiers

The first thing I did was revisit all the ideas we've stumbled upon throughout the discussion, and I found two that seemed to have the most support:

• A less rigid Tech Tree
• A feedback mechanism where what you do influences your Techs

A solution involving the less rigid Tech Tree was immediate: the Discovery/Mastery system. What if we essentially had a two-layered Tech Tree (the 3rd dimension I discovered on my way up the mountain); the lower layer was for Discovery and the upper layer was for Mastery. Since Discovery would have a lesser effect, we could make the Discovery Tech Tree a lot more flexible. We could even restore Choice to the Player; if they wanted to Discover Guilds right off the back, they could. It might take them 300 turns (or more), but it would be possible.

To encourage players, though, to focus on the earlier techs, the Influencer system would still be present on the Discovery Tech. But all they would do is speed up research of later techs. For example, you could skip Bronze Working and go straight for Iron Working ... but if you already had Bronze Working, you would receive bonuses towards Discovering Iron Working. So BW > IW might take 25 turns, whereas IW > BW would take 30. For a really advanced Tech such as Steam Power, it might be faster to research all of its Influencer Techs and Steam Power rather than just start on Steam Power as soon as possible.

Mastery would also be a matter of choice, of course, however, the Mastery Tech Tree would be a lot more rigid. You might be able to Discover Steam Power early, but you're not going to Master it unless you've Mastered Chemistry and Replaceable Parts. How your research would be divided between the two could be decided later but it seems like ...

Crap. Feedback mechanism. How do I incorporate a Feedback Mechanism into the Two-Tier Tech Tree?

This required some thinking. Could we take Choice out of the players' hands when it came to Mastery and make Mastery a straight Feedback Mechanism?

Well, first off, the Tech Tree is going to have to be rebalanced -- almost from scratch. Every Tech needs to provide a benefit at both layers. More importantly, the benefit at the Discovery level must be actionable, otherwise the Feedback Mechanism can't work. And Mastery must provide a benefit that makes it worthwhile when it occurs but not so powerful that it's required in order to win the game.

Gameplay would be fun: you get more Tech options to choose from and a more varied gameplay experience based on what you're able to Master. You have the ability to make Interesting Decisions by taking gambles on Advanced Techs.

The only problem that remains is balance, but I have faith in Firaxis to figure that out. So that's where I think I am at: a flexible Tech Tree with every Tech having two states, Discovery and Mastery, with the latter being the result of a Feedback mechanism. So I guess it's really only one layer of Tech Tree, one where the player still has choice ... just with added bonuses based on what he does.

Why I came down from the Mountain

Well, I need feedback from everybody, right?

 

[thenooblet22]

Why I went up the Mountain

The journey began with this post, as I began to contemplate whether a modified Tech Tree would allow for Interesting Decisions. It was in the midst of this contemplation that I discerned a high level of micro-management in the early game during my playtesting. So not only was the Interesting Decision factor weighing on my mind, but also the Gameplay factor.

Civilization is a game first and a historical simulation second. This is important to remember -- oftentimes the suggestions one sees are those that will add more historical versimilitude to the game without any consideration as to whether it will be Fun for the player. This was my mistake with Abandonment.

Abandonment has existed in my musings since the beginning for two reasons: one for its historical reality, and two for its ability to allow non-traditional tech leaps.
See Abandonment to me was the coolest idea because of its historical basis; Civs lose technology, Dark ages occur, etc. etc. Modeling a system where poor play or military setbacks by the player (or the AI) resulted in Tech loss was a worthwhile goal in my opinion. It added a flavor the current rigid tech tree could never accomplish.

It also allowed a far less rigid tech tree. Right now the reason you can't research Steam Power in advance is because early Ironclads would confer a huge advantage on the player doing so. IF, however, a system was developed that required the player to make sacrifices in order to do so, it would be feasible. That's what we did, essentially. It took a couple iterations, but the 'final' product allowed a flexible tech tree and the opportunity to make tech leaps. There was a necessary balancing effect caused by abandonment (it allowed you to reject the advanced tech if you didn't want to fall behind elsewhere, or to lose other Techs to focus on the advanced ones) and the discernment between Discovery and Mastery, where the latter gave you more impact at a higher cost than simply Discovery. It seemed like the system was well-fabricated: advanced techs, flexible tech tree, Interesting Decisions, the addition of more strategy within the Tech Tree itself, historical reality.

But then the Gameplay Factor came in, and I knew the system was not viable. The reason comes down to Abandonment.

See Abandonment itself is not really an Interesting Decision. It's an annoyance, especially since in 99% of the games, it will end up being temporary -- so you're not even providing the player with a strategic "Sophie's Choice". Now, the pursuit of an advanced tech may prove to be an Interesting Decision, but never Abandonment. Abandonment, for all of its balancing effect and historical reality, was not fun. Adjusting just a simple slider to maintain Techs in the early game was a chore. It's micromanagement at the worst part of the game for it. It's bad enough we took away the ability of the player to choose the Tech he or she can research, now we're creating situations where they lose the Tech. There's no way, shape, or form this could be fun.

So the first thing I decided was that Abandonment needed to be Abandoned. Without Abandonment, there's no need for Maintenance. Ergo, we've removed the Micromanagement aspect and we've restored Fun to the game. However, now we've created an imbalance.

So that's why I went up the mountain. To rectify the imbalance caused by the removal of Abandonment.

My only goal at the top of the mountain was to solve the problem; and if the solution was dissolution, then so be it. But as I was climbing up, I noticed that I was moving vertical to the ground--I was gaining a third dimension. The solution seemed on the tip of my tongue ... or the top of the mountain.

I'm gonna post a long summary of my opinion, but I just got a quick thought first. You said the Abondonment feature was a nuisance, however, did you ever implement the Feedback mechanism (I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but I mean the diffusion of technology knowledge between civilizations)? Because as I would imagine, a capable computer AI or human woul have around the same latter of techs, feeding you the necessary lightbulbs to keep your techs alive as well. I don't think you can accurately test the Abondonment feature without the Feedback together. That way isolated civilizations, like in history, would have trouble advancing and holding techs. This would also keep civilizations pulling ahead in check. It should work my friend.

P.S. I think two tech trees is too complicated and doesn't sound as exciting.

 

[ChrTh]

I'm gonna post a long summary of my opinion, but I just got a quick thought first. You said the Abondonment feature was a nuisance, however, did you ever implement the Feedback mechanism (I'm not sure exactly what you meant, but I mean the diffusion of technology knowledge between civilizations)? Because as I would imagine, a capable computer AI or human woul have around the same latter of techs, feeding you the necessary lightbulbs to keep your techs alive as well. I don't think you can accurately test the Abondonment feature without the Feedback together. That way isolated civilizations, like in history, would have trouble advancing and holding techs. This would also keep civilizations pulling ahead in check. It should work my friend.

Feedback was based on What You Did (you really need to read the rest of the thread). So, since Mining was a Manufacturing Tech, the more Mines you built/worked, the more likely you were to discover other Manufacturing Techs. The more Banks you built, the more likely you were to discover other Economy Techs.

Feedback is something a lot of people have called for because it represents a reality: the more you work on something, the better you get at it.

P.S. I think two tech trees is too complicated and doesn't sound as exciting.

There's only 1 tree ... it just has a limited third dimension now.

 

[thenooblet22]

Feedback was based on What You Did (you really need to read the rest of the thread). So, since Mining was a Manufacturing Tech, the more Mines you built/worked, the more likely you were to discover other Manufacturing Techs. The more Banks you built, the more likely you were to discover other Economy Techs.

Feedback is something a lot of people have called for because it represents a reality: the more you work on something, the better you get at it.

Scratch that then and read what I have in parentheses. I'm talking about the diffusion of technologies through civilization contacts. If implemented, crowded civilizations should be able to maintain common technologies for free with transferring lightbulbs. Like I said, this means improved gameplay and historical feeling: isolated civilizations would have trouble maintaining technologies and would be backwards; advanced civilizations would have trouble pulling ahead when investing on unkown technologies, keeping them in check (I'm sure many people are sick of runaway civilizations in late-game).

There's only 1 tree ... it just has a limited third dimension now.

However you spin it, you're still working on multiple trees.

EDIT: And when I say contact with a civilization, I mean an open trade route.

 

[ChrTh]

Scratch that then and read what I have in parentheses. I'm talking about the diffusion of technologies through civilization contacts. If implemented, crowded civilizations should be able to maintain common technologies for free with transferring lightbulbs. Like I said, this means improved gameplay and historical feeling: isolated civilizations would have trouble maintaining technologies and would be backwards; advanced civilizations would have trouble pulling ahead when investing on unkown technologies, keeping them in check (I'm sure many people are sick of runaway civilizations in late-game).

Civ 3 had that. IT SUCKED. Isolated start on a high difficulty level, you might as well restart the game (and many people did) as by the time the AI met you (you never got to them first), they were an age ahead. They took it out for a reason. It ain't coming back. (Plus it would kill the viability of Mercantilism)

However you spin it, you're still working on multiple trees.

No spin. The Tech Tree screen would look the same. Seeing it as multiple trees is a fault in your perception, not in its portraying.

 

[thenooblet22]

Civ 3 had that. IT SUCKED. Isolated start on a high difficulty level, you might as well restart the game (and many people did) as by the time the AI met you (you never got to them first), they were an age ahead. They took it out for a reason. It ain't coming back. (Plus it would kill the viability of Mercantilism).

First of all, I don't think its fair to compare Civ3 and Civ4, as they have different paces, gameplay, and AI. Secondly, I wasn't aware Civ3 had technology diffusion (I had C3C). Never noticed it and I played on average levels. But I would imagine that on higher levels, it would be harder because the computer AI typically gets bonuses rather this feature. Furthermore, the diffusion of technologies would only be a little stream of lightbulbs, barely enough to maintain the common technologies from abandonment. Isolated civilizations wouldn't have their legs broken, but it would be harder to micromanage technological research, as it should be. This feature is necessary for balancing the Abandonment machansim. If this conflicts with Mecantilism, then change the civic, don't scrap your whole idea.

No spin. The Tech Tree screen would look the same. Seeing it as multiple trees is a fault in your perception, not in its portraying.

But it still functions as multiple trees.

I'm not trying to attack you. I just don't want you to give up on the previous version because I think it could work

 

[dh_epic]

Let me get this straight, ChrTh. Let's start over. Basically, start with the Civilization 4 tech tree. You're recommending that we:

1) divide the tech tree into discrete branches (machinery, government, philosophy...)
2) have two different levels of research investment. a minimal one that gives you a small bonus (discovery), and a full investment that gives you all the bonuses (mastery).
3) allow the tech tree to be climbed with discovery alone. but have a benefit to climbing should you fully master certain technologies.

Otherwise, scrap abandonment, scrap maintenance, scrap blind/probabilistic discovery.

If I'm receiving you correctly, I think this is at least an equally valid suggestion as the one you were working on before. If anything, it's more palatable because it's simpler. And whereas the other suggestion involved trading some choices for others, this simply adds another level of choice with no sacrifices.

 

[ChrTh]

First of all, I don't think its fair to compare Civ3 and Civ4, as they have different paces, gameplay, and AI. Secondly, I wasn't aware Civ3 had technology diffusion (I had C3C). Never noticed it and I played on average levels. But I would imagine that on higher levels, it would be harder because the computer AI typically gets bonuses rather this feature. Furthermore, the diffusion of technologies would only be a little stream of lightbulbs, barely enough to maintain the common technologies from abandonment. Isolated civilizations wouldn't have their legs broken, but it would be harder to micromanage technological research, as it should be. This feature is necessary for balancing the Abandonment machansim. If this conflicts with Mecantilism, then change the civic, don't scrap your whole idea.

What Civ 3 did was: the first Civ to research the Tech had to put the most lightbulbs in it. The second Civ didn't need as many (as long as he was in contact with the first Civ). The third Civ needed even fewer (again, as long as he was in contact with the first two). But if you were isolated, you ALWAYS needed the max lightbulbs to research a tech. Throw in the fact that Tech Trading was also impossible, and it was game over.

Here's the problem: so many people hated it, that if Firaxis announced they were putting it back in -- even though it may be more viable with Civ 4 or 5 -- the outcry would be far greater than the HRE situation. So as long as Firaxis are the guys making the game, I don't see it happening.

But it still functions as multiple trees.

Right now the Tech Tree is binary in the z direction; you have it or you don't. With the Discovery/Mastery system, it's trinary: Don't have it/Discovered/Mastered. It's still one Tech Tree, just with an additional level.

I'm not trying to attack you. I just don't want you to give up on the previous version because I think it could work

There's a difference between working -- which it did -- and being fun -- which it wasn't.

Let me get this straight, ChrTh. Let's start over. Basically, start with the Civilization 4 tech tree. You're recommending that we:

1) divide the tech tree into discrete branches (machinery, government, philosophy...)

This is superfluous now; without the random discovery mechanism you don't need to divide into branches. However, we could still do it because we could then associate Civ Traits with branches or something similar.

2) have two different levels of research investment. a minimal one that gives you a small bonus (discovery), and a full investment that gives you all the bonuses (mastery).

I'm not sure about this, this is the main point of contention on my part, and the reason I came down from the mountain.

There are three ways you can do Mastery:
Pure input, just like you do Discovery, just like you do the Tech Tree now
Pure Feedback. The only control a player has on mastering a Tech is what he does.
A mix of the two. The problem is that if is a factor, the player is going to expect results in a finite amount of time.

If the choice is Pure Feedback, the Mastery effect can not be overpowered, because the player is better suited to push for Mastery than the AI is. If, however, you make a part of it, you can amp up the benefits of Mastery.

3) allow the tech tree to be climbed with discovery alone. but have a benefit to climbing should you fully master certain technologies.

Yep.

Otherwise, scrap abandonment, scrap maintenance, scrap blind/probabilistic discovery.

Exactly.

If I'm receiving you correctly, I think this is at least an equally valid suggestion as the one you were working on before. If anything, it's more palatable because it's simpler. And whereas the other suggestion involved trading some choices for others, this simply adds another level of choice with no sacrifices.

Right. If we can resolve the Mastery mechanism to everyone's satisfaction, then we have a viable system, imo.

 

[thenooblet22]

What Civ 3 did was: the first Civ to research the Tech had to put the most lightbulbs in it. The second Civ didn't need as many (as long as he was in contact with the first Civ). The third Civ needed even fewer (again, as long as he was in contact with the first two). But if you were isolated, you ALWAYS needed the max lightbulbs to research a tech. Throw in the fact that Tech Trading was also impossible, and it was game over.

Here's the problem: so many people hated it, that if Firaxis announced they were putting it back in -- even though it may be more viable with Civ 4 or 5 -- the outcry would be far greater than the HRE situation. So as long as Firaxis are the guys making the game, I don't see it happening.

But that is nothing like what I've describe. Hear me out instead of shutting me down with this Civ3 scapegoat. The diffusion of technologies would only be a little stream of lightbulbs, just enough to maintain the most common technologies. There would be no gain, only a counter. Say CivA had Hunting and has three trade routes, then divide the chosen percent (whatever the balance amount of streaming lightbulbs per technology) by the 3 Civs. It could be enough to balance Abandonment, it may not. The more common the technology, the more active streams and the faster its discovered among the crowded. Islolated civilizations would not be punished, they just won't be awarded. They are stuck with the raw abandonment feature and has to micromanage accordingly. The modern world would be easier for civilizations to catch up, a realworld situation. Only superpowers will be able to maintain technological runaways, which is more acceptable.

Secondly, what Civ4 World Maps are you playing? I usually play Continent or Fractal, and I've only seen an isolated civilization twice. Of those times, I was the one. You know what, I was the most advanced civilization, which does not make sense. If someone is isolated, its their choice to quit and restart, but for those who want a challenge, like myself, can dare to continue.

Right now the Tech Tree is binary in the z direction; you have it or you don't. With the Discovery/Mastery system, it's trinary: Don't have it/Discovered/Mastered. It's still one Tech Tree, just with an additional level. There's a difference between working -- which it did -- and being fun -- which it wasn't.

Thats why I proposed testing it with the diffusion of technology. It is the abandonment counter and would relieve the strain of micromanaging all of your technologies. Scrapping your original idea wouldn't add more 'fun', but detract its 'flavor'.

Please, reconsider. Civ3 was not a multi-stream technology diffusion. It was a ranking system. Different things. Different results. Furthermore, its used for different reasons: to counter Abandonment in a creative/historically accurate/gameplay statisfying way.

 

[ChrTh]

But that is nothing like what I've describe. Hear me out instead of shutting me down with this Civ3 scapegoat. The diffusion of technologies would only be a little stream of lightbulbs, just enough to maintain the most common technologies. There would be no gain, only a counter. Say CivA had Hunting and has three trade routes, then divide the chosen percent (whatever the balance amount of streaming lightbulbs per technology) by the 3 Civs. It could be enough to balance Abandonment, it may not. The more common the technology, the more active streams and the faster its discovered among the crowded. Islolated civilizations would not be punished, they just won't be awarded. They are stuck with the raw abandonment feature and has to micromanage accordingly. The modern world would be easier for civilizations to catch up, a realworld situation. Only superpowers will be able to maintain technological runaways, which is more acceptable.

Actually, in the original system I developed, neighbors possessing the Tech was a positive modifier on abandonment, so I'd already factored in neighbors having the technology. The issue is, once you go from a fluctuating Abandonment system to simple maintenance (like we did here), you necessarily eliminate modifiers. So the only way to put back the neighbor modifiers is to return to the fluctuating system, which no one (in the end, not even me) liked because it was too complex.

Secondly, what Civ4 World Maps are you playing? I usually play Continent or Fractal, and I've only seen an isolated civilization twice. Of those times, I was the one. You know what, I was the most advanced civilization, which does not make sense. If someone is isolated, its their choice to quit and restart, but for those who want a challenge, like myself, can dare to continue.

That's Civ 4. In Civ 3 if you chose Continents, invariably one Civ started off isolated. Again, Civ 4 has made changes that could make the old system work better, but too much bitterness remains.

Thats why I proposed testing it with the diffusion of technology. It is the abandonment counter and would relieve the strain of micromanaging all of your technologies. Scrapping your original idea wouldn't add more 'fun', but detract its 'flavor'.

Please, reconsider. Civ3 was not a multi-stream technology diffusion. It was a ranking system. Different things. Different results. Furthermore, its used for different reasons: to counter Abandonment in a creative/historically accurate/gameplay statisfying way.

Let me illustrate what was happening in a different way.

The game Civilization does not account for natural troop attrition. In the real world, armies lose their manpower over time due to illness, desertions, fatigue/hunger, etc. But in Civ it doesn't happen. A power 8 Maceman will still be power 8 when he arrives at Athens ten turns after leaving his borders.

So let's add it to the game. Each turn your Civ moves (including an action such as pillaging) outside your borders they lose .05x power, x being their max power. So a Maceman loses .4 a turn when he moves. If he fortifies/sleeps, he gains it back at the same rate (ignore promotions such as Medic). So by the time the Maceman reaches Athens, he'd be power 4.

To counteract this attrition, the player would need to do one of two things:
produce more troops to make up for the degradation in power (thus necessarily sacrificing other builds such as buildings and wonders); or
move the troops slower

Neither of these are really palatable options to the wargamer, or even the normal gamer. Adding this feature may have added realism, but at the same time, it makes combat a bigger chore. It doesn't add any Fun to the game.

Ditto Abandonment. To counteract it, you either have to sacrifice other Techs (or production to focus on Commerce) or you have to go slower in your Tech progression. In the end, it's Tech Attrition. More realistic, less fun.

It has to go.

 

[thenooblet22]

Actually, in the original system I developed, neighbors possessing the Tech was a positive modifier on abandonment, so I'd already factored in neighbors having the technology. The issue is, once you go from a fluctuating Abandonment system to simple maintenance (like we did here), you necessarily eliminate modifiers. So the only way to put back the neighbor modifiers is to return to the fluctuating system, which no one (in the end, not even me) liked because it was too complex.

A positive modifier is not the same as the dynamic percent of lightbulb streams. The amount of lightbulbs you recieve depends on how many Civs you have open trade routes with, the amount of lightbulbs invested thus far in that technology per Civ, and the number of other Civ neighbors to divide that percentage (whichever you find appropriate, say 5% of lightbulbs) among them. Now if this, in fact, is exactly (don't say relatively because it is really dependent on these very factors/variables) what you had in place before and it wasn't enough to save you to hassle of micromanaging the most common technologies, then you need to amp the bonuses (or my case, the percentage of lightbulb streams) up. You wouldn't forget a technology that you and your neighbors all had unless you were hit in the head by a rock.

This system wouldn't be complicated if you lay it out in a simplified, readable manner. Color code the percentage of lightbulbs invested into each individual technology, red(decifit)/green(rising)/grey(stagnant), accordingly. For hardcore micromanaging gamers, the math of the variables of that percentage should be displayed for there benefit (maybe by hovering the mouse over the said number).

That's Civ 4. In Civ 3 if you chose Continents, invariably one Civ started off isolated. Again, Civ 4 has made changes that could make the old system work better, but too much bitterness remains.

Which is why it is unfair to compare the Civ3 old machanics to future ones.

Let me illustrate what was happening in a different way.

The game Civilization does not account for natural troop attrition. In the real world, armies lose their manpower over time due to illness, desertions, fatigue/hunger, etc. But in Civ it doesn't happen. A power 8 Maceman will still be power 8 when he arrives at Athens ten turns after leaving his borders.

So let's add it to the game. Each turn your Civ moves (including an action such as pillaging) outside your borders they lose .05x power, x being their max power. So a Maceman loses .4 a turn when he moves. If he fortifies/sleeps, he gains it back at the same rate (ignore promotions such as Medic). So by the time the Maceman reaches Athens, he'd be power 4.

To counteract this attrition, the player would need to do one of two things:
produce more troops to make up for the degradation in power (thus necessarily sacrificing other builds such as buildings and wonders); or
move the troops slower

Neither of these are really palatable options to the wargamer, or even the normal gamer. Adding this feature may have added realism, but at the same time, it makes combat a bigger chore. It doesn't add any Fun to the game.

Ditto Abandonment. To counteract it, you either have to sacrifice other Techs (or production to focus on Commerce) or you have to go slower in your Tech progression. In the end, it's Tech Attrition. More realistic, less fun.

No, bad example. You're comparing manually moving your units slower, a player-controlled counter, to the diffusion of technologies, which would be passive. If you think the game pace is too slow, then I guess the lightbulbs required need to be reworked, not the system. I'm sorry you can't see what I'm imagining, but the previous mechanism could in fact work. I gave you a solution, but you won't give it an ear.

It has to go

Which is why I'll stop arguing because you obviously made your final choice when you left that mountain. I really saw potential in this Abandonment machanism. I'll check in from time to time, but unsubscribed, sorry

 

[ChrTh]

No, bad example. You're comparing manually moving your units slower, a player-controlled counter, to the diffusion of technologies, which would be passive. If you think the game pace is too slow, then I guess the lightbulbs required need to be reworked, not the system. I'm sorry you can't see what I'm imagining, but the previous mechanism could in fact work. I gave you a solution, but you won't give it an ear.

Your only solution is to have diffusion of techs to offset maintenance. One, it's not enough: you're only adding one factor. Two, it doesn't change the fact that the one time it wouldn't help -- the early game -- is where the biggest problem with the abandonment system exists. Unless you can provide a solution for the early game, it's not a workaround to my decision to abandon.

Which is why I'll stop arguing because you obviously made your final choice when you left that mountain. I really saw potential in this Abandonment machanism. I'll check in from time to time, but unsubscribed, sorry

That's ok, I have to create a new thread for the new mechanic anyway, so this thread will be abandoned as well.

 

[dh_epic]

Right. If we can resolve the Mastery mechanism to everyone's satisfaction, then we have a viable system, imo.

So there's still some wiggle room about how the tech tree would be drawn in the first place -- whether it would be pulled apart into more distinct branches or not. And there's still some wiggle room as to what should contribute to mastery -- personally I think research should always be king, but there should be a research discount if you have something. Kind of the same way that there's a production discount for certain buildings if you have copper, or stone, or so on.

The main challenge with this idea (which was still a challenge in the other system, just not the main one)... is trying to prevent this from becoming as complicated as doubling the entire tech tree.

You could, in theory, accomplish the same thing by having a "Fishing" technology and a "Fishing Mastery" technology. Both offer different benefits, and both have different costs. Mastery techs never unlock new techs. But obviously we don't want to double the size of the tech tree.

I think this is a challenge of organization more than anything. If it's organized well, it feels like one tree with discovery/mastery. If it starts to slip into something more complicated, then it feels like a doubly-long tree.

 

[thenooblet22]

Your only solution is to have diffusion of techs to offset maintenance. One, it's not enough: you're only adding one factor. Two, it doesn't change the fact that the one time it wouldn't help -- the early game -- is where the biggest problem with the abandonment system exists. Unless you can provide a solution for the early game, it's not a workaround to my decision to abandon.

Hehe, I can't help but continue to argue One, I don't understand what's not enough. The purpose of this would to relieve the player of the tedious task of maintain ALL of his technologies, which in this case would be the common technologies shared by other civilizations. Two, the beginning should be harder. However, the technologies should have low lightbulb cost, since afterall, they are minor compared to the complex inventions of the latter ages. Maintaining at this time determines where you stand in the nes era. Only serious technological diffusion and interacting cultures should only occur in the Classical era. I think a player could hold his nerves micromanaging at most 10 technologies before the technology diffusion starts kicking in.

Again, this isn't a clear-cut counter, but a reliever. Sure, with enough knowledge from other civilizations, it can cancel out the effects of abandonment, but it shouldn't rescue you everytime from everything. This is like the dynamic gameplay I would like to see.

I've decided I care about this project too much to abandon it just yet

 

[ChrTh]

The beginning can NOT be harder. I didn't realize this until I playtested, but Firaxis has done a great job on minimizing the necessity for micromanagement during the early game. Some of it is forced, i.e. only one slider at start. Some of it is a fix from Civ 3 (ie overflow hammers and beakers). But mostly what they've done is highlight the important choices in the early game (which Tech to research, where to build your next city) by minimizing the mundane choices that are prevalent in the latter game (what tiles to work, which civics to run, what unit to build next, how much science to run). If you are going to add complexity to the early game, you are going to need a strong reason to do so. The Discovery/Mastery slider was a frustrating addition, as it required frequent adjustment in the first 50-60 turns. Didn't need to touch the Tech slider once in that time.

Diffusion does not solve this problem because it doesn't occur until Open Borders at the earliest, and even then it'll have a limited impact as different Civs research different Techs.

You have to understand: the system looks like it would work fine for Classical or later starts (or using the new Advanced Start option in BTS). But the burden it adds to the game in the Ancient Age outweighs any benefit. And if it can't be applicable to the entire length of the game, it can't be added.

BTW, there is nothing stopping you from creating your own system using abandonment. We're all open source here. If you can find a way around these problems, more power to you.

 

[ChrTh]

So there's still some wiggle room about how the tech tree would be drawn in the first place -- whether it would be pulled apart into more distinct branches or not. And there's still some wiggle room as to what should contribute to mastery -- personally I think research should always be king, but there should be a research discount if you have something. Kind of the same way that there's a production discount for certain buildings if you have copper, or stone, or so on.

The main challenge with this idea (which was still a challenge in the other system, just not the main one)... is trying to prevent this from becoming as complicated as doubling the entire tech tree.

You could, in theory, accomplish the same thing by having a "Fishing" technology and a "Fishing Mastery" technology. Both offer different benefits, and both have different costs. Mastery techs never unlock new techs. But obviously we don't want to double the size of the tech tree.

I think this is a challenge of organization more than anything. If it's organized well, it feels like one tree with discovery/mastery. If it starts to slip into something more complicated, then it feels like a doubly-long tree.

Which is why I don't like the idea of directed research towards Mastery. If you remove research from the Mastery aspect, then it won't be a doubly-long tree, it'll be a tree with depth at each tech.

The problem is, as Neo said, choice. Would the player be willing to submit to a system wherein mastery of a Tech is outside of their direct control?