A New Tech Tree Mechanic for Civilization 5

[thenooblet22]

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.

I said harder, as in harder compared to the rest of the game, not literally making it harder. Again, would it kill you to micromanage at most 10 technologies before technology diffusion kicked in? I think its quite necessary because the beginning stages determines where you stand for the early latter of the game. Besides, people usually start out with a clear thought of what they are going to strive for, so its not as overwhelming as you're trying to paint.

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.

No, open borders and trade routes are different things. The little triangle arrows appear with a connected city, whether by coast (with Sailing), by road, or cultural borders.

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.

Again, I know few that ever research more than 10 ancient technologies without advancing to the next era. Besides, if the game play is as so slow as you say, you should have coastal trade routes or roade routes or maybe even cultural borders sooner than the Classical age; however, serious diffusion should open up later. Plus, I don't know how you can shoot this down since you haven't implemented these exact variables to the gameplay.

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.

Too lazy. I rather just say my word on this.

 

[ChrTh]

We've radically changed the mechanic, so I've started a new thread here. I'm leaving the originals intact for reference/historical purposes.

 

[thenooblet22]

We've radically changed the mechanic, so I've started a new thread here. I'm leaving the originals intact for reference/historical purposes.

Aww, boo! You scrapped Abandonment

 

[ChrTh]

Aww, boo! You scrapped Abandonment

Technically, I Abandoned it. Its Maintenance was too high, and I wanted to concentrate my on the Feedback Mechanism.

 

[thenooblet22]

Technically, I Abandoned it. Its Maintenance was too high, and I wanted to concentrate my on the Feedback Mechanism.

I don't see why you couldn't apply both. I thought I made it clear maintenance wasn't a problem. Oh well, I'll quit wasting your time

 

[dh_epic]

The idea still exists for people who want to pick it up. We're only talking about ideas here anyway. But Firaxis probably doesn't want to find new ways to implement penalties anyway.

ChrTh, maybe you should request to have these old threads locked and put a link to the new thread at the top. Would probably keep the discussion more focused?

 

[ChrTh]

I have put the new link on the top of both threads. If I see continued activity I'll lock them. To be honest, the reason I don't want to lock them is so I can still quote from posts (I hit quote, then select/copy/paste to the other thread)

 

[dguichar]

Here is the association branch for each Great Person:
Great Artist -- Philosophy
Great Engineer -- Manufacturing
Great Explorer -- Discovery
Great Merchant -- Economics
Great Prophet -- Philosophy
Great Scientist -- Civilization
Great Spy -- Government

If there's Philosophy branch which allows two types of great people (Artist & Prophet), then (for the sake of gameplay balance) each branch should allow two types of great people.
Also, as tech progress is based upon unknown/abandoned, discovered, adopted & embraced. Then, to avoid confusion, the Discovery branch should be renamed. I suggest Landscape branch
By the same basis, Philosophy branch includes a tech of the same name. Then again, to avoid confusion, the Philosophy branch should be renamed. I suggest Inspirational branch (which also fits more with having a Great Artist).

So to put it together...
Tech branch->Great people
Inspirational->Artist & Prophet (for & )
Civilization->Scientist & Urbanist (for & )
Economics->Goldsmith & Merchant (for maintenance reduction & )
Government->Beaurocrat & Spy (for shorter revolutions & intelligence )
Landscape->Explorer & General (for & )
Manufacturing->Engineer & Foreperson (for building & increased productivity; ie extra , & )

 

[dh_epic]

The branches are pretty easy to redesign and rename. And seeing as this is more of a Civ 5 idea, the great people probably wouldn't even be the same. And it's not to say that the branches would be easily divided around great person lines. But I agree with you that you wouldn't want to account for great people in the tech tree balance.

 

[Wodan]

I'm still half of the opinion that instead of branches, each tech should have "characteristics". These would be % compositions of the categories.

I'd about talked myself out of it because it would add complexity... rather than a graphical representation, it's a numbers representation, which is inherently harder for people to grasp.

Wodan