Active Research Discussion

[Eagle Pursuit]

That will probably be balanced to a lesser amount during testing or after release.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That will probably be balanced to a lesser amount during testing or after release.

-50% looks ok to me. Enough to affect the research path, not enough to rush through the tech tree like mad bull. If they drop this to -20% the system will not work at all.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Yes the active part must give a resonable boost otherwise it can be mostly ignored without much of an effect on the game.

 

[Ikael]

Sounds like an awesome idea to me. Gameplay styles affecting teching outcomes and vice versa! BTW, the developers also mentioned that this will somehow apply to social policies / culture, right?

I think that a similar system could work wonders regarding religion: First civilization to build a wonder? Gain the Egyptian pantheon! First civilization to start a long land trade route? You found Islam! And so on and on.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

It is possible that the active stuff will apply to more then just research, as the developers said they wanted your civilization develop in a "sensible way" so a civilization that was founded near the coast will likely develop a stronger navy then a land locked civilization.

 

[Lexicus]

I wonder whether there will be ways to change your "orientation". Rome, for example, was a thoroughly land-based civilization but used a washed-up Carthaginian ship to construct their own fleet and challenge Carthage for control of the sea.

I suppose in game terms Rome would be a coastal start and thus would receive sea-orientation bonuses from the beginning.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I guess if you start building a navy you will find it easier and easier to develop stuff such as a naval tradition.

If you build up alot of factories you will likely find it easier to develop the assembly line technology as well develop social policies that improve your production.

 

[dexters]

Well Rome also had ports by the time of the punic wars. They simply didn't pursue a Navy until they needed to.

From what we know civs that start off landlocked but eventually gain port access will get access to the same research bonus quests as a civ that starts on the coast for seafaring techs.

For balance devs could always lock certain techs behind requiring capital cities to be settled on coasts. But we simply don't know enough at this point so I'm just speculating.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I think it would be fun to eg start in the middle of a continent, conquer the whole thing, and then realize you need to switch from land-based research to a more naval orientation. That would add some extra challenge to the game particularly if there was groundwork to be laid in the longer-term.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I guess if you start building a navy you will find it easier and easier to develop stuff such as a naval tradition.

If you build up alot of factories you will likely find it easier to develop the assembly line technology as well develop social policies that improve your production.

I hope it's not just "near a coast" = 50% off Sailing. I think it would be better if it were like 5% per coastal tile maxing at 50%. That way you have to invest in coastal locations more and more to get more naval benefits.

 

[dexters]

Well, I think it would be fun to eg start in the middle of a continent, conquer the whole thing, and then realize you need to switch from land-based research to a more naval orientation. That would add some extra challenge to the game particularly if there was groundwork to be laid in the longer-term.

If I understand the articles correctly, in the scenario you described above, a landlocked land empire will not be penalized when they finally get port access.

But what it does suggest is that prior to getting port access it would be futile to research seafaring techs or any techs that benefit from being on the coast. It's suggested players don't even go into that branch of the tree until they get port access then they can start working on those techs.

This does suggest a period of catching up by the land empire vis-a-vis it's naval rivals but this asymmetry is what Ed Beach loves to introduce. similar to his diplomatic inflection points in Brave New World.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

They said that in previous civilization game they feelt that the tech tree was separated from the rest of the game and it was to common to go the same direction no matter the game.

The active research part is to encourage a civilization to develop in a sensible way, it also encourage civilizations to expand instead of just founding 3-4 cities and just play passively for most of the game, you could see the active research part as a help for civilizations that choose to expand.

You are not forced to use the active part of research but it is very helpful and should make raw science output weaker then it was in previous games as it is likely that many active research goals require you to do stuff that may not help your raw science development.

It is also interesting to see what effects the active part have on the start, it should help most civs develop the needed starting techs quicker.

 

[Lexicus]

They said that in previous civilization game they feelt that the tech tree was separated from the rest of the game and it was to common to go the same direction no matter the game.

They must have just been talking about Civ V because that so isn't the case in IV. I mean, right off the bat your tech path is going to be determined by what food is nearby.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

But after you get your worker tech then the civilization 4 tech tree choices become more like which tech can I sell for most techs. Many techs in Civilization IV feelt very pointless to develop and the game feelt based around some key military techs in the later parts of the game, if you could get these before the ai you could destroy them military.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, there were only so many choices. But certainly the tree in IV was more flexible and more tied to what was going on in the rest of the game than V's was.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But after you get your worker tech then the civilization 4 tech tree choices become more like which tech can I sell for most techs. Many techs in Civilization IV feelt very pointless to develop and the game feelt based around some key military techs in the later parts of the game, if you could get these before the ai you could destroy them military.

That's because the design of tech trades was similarly broken to early RAs in Civ V. The potential you could get from trades was so overwhelming that it often outstripped elite micro in utility.

IV and V do not differ much in how their trees progress relative to the game. The main difference is that a tech lead was a greater military advantage in IV, and that's about it. Different techs are prioritized between the two (aqueducts much bigger deal in V, currency much bigger deal in IV to get early-ish usually). In IV there was no such thing as medieval UU or xbows viable in renaissance though. Fighting maces with classical or especially rifles with medieval would get your pants pulled down, so tech was more important to military in IV.

I like the idea of active research in principle quite a bit, it's the most promising science change concept I've seen in a long time.

Well, there were only so many choices. But certainly the tree in IV was more flexible and more tied to what was going on in the rest of the game than V's was.

Not really. In practice with trades on, you'd pick trade techs (often the same stuff since AI would research different same stuff consistently). With trades off, you'd emphasize either science or a dominant military unit to abuse, with the occasional "I'm isolated so I want astronomy". In practice this is very similar to V, where you'll prioritize something like Chivalry if going for camel archers but will largely favor growth + science otherwise, only breaking from that to veer into a VC path later on.

 

[dexters]

Well, there were only so many choices. But certainly the tree in IV was more flexible and more tied to what was going on in the rest of the game than V's was.

Uhhh no. There's always only a handful best ways to tech in Civ games gaming the killer techs no matter the start. There may be slight variations in teching order game to game but they are slight. Back in the old days There were even elaborate slingshot strategies when tech trading was in the game. Those rose colored glasses of yours must be really foggy.

Besides what the dev is doing is not about adding variation for the sake of variation but to tie tech development more closely with each individual civs start and not have it exist in its own plane detached from the rest of the game. It would make sense for example a landlocked start would not have much research for seafaring techs even if the human player has foreknowledge that one of those techs unlocks something really good and they would otherwise beeline for it

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Active research don't necessarily change the value of the techs but it could potential as I said before reduce raw science output as it is likely that most active parts will require a substantial effort with another resource such as production, gold and culture which in turn encourage you to build up the production of these resources just to get technologies faster.

Active research will only work if you do the active part before you research the tech so each technology you research without doing the active part will cost you some potential beakers which do encourage you to do the active part before researching the tech.

In Civilization 4 after tech trading was unlocked, technology part of the game was mainly about researching a technology which you can trade in for several other technologies. A big problem in Civilization 4 was that military investment basically always seemed superior to civilian once. A strong bureaucracy capital was often good enough because how slow cottages grow which made them a doubtful investment into most cities and that in turn reduced greatly the value of most infrastructure. Add in that a single civic (Caste system) allowed you to get to great the great people you needed pretty easily and the return of these great people was extreme, add in tech trading and bureaucracy capital and you was pretty much ready to go.

All other cities could just focus on hammers who was a very flexible resource with the main purpose to produce an army and with that army you could bring down weaker civilization and use their cities to help you build up an even stronger to bring down stronger and stronger civilization, the game did not really have any sort of expansion cap as city maintenance cost was pretty limited in its effectiveness and could be cut in half with a relative cheap courthouse, pretty much the goal of the game was just to expand after you got some key techs and the best way to expand was to invest as much resources into your army as possible.

In Civilization 5 expansion is not necessarily the easiest way as the cost of each city is significant higher then in civilization 4, especially in the late game althougt this have lead to stuff like 4 city tradition which can often win the game. With one unit per tile the possible military investment you can do is more limited which in turn do encourage more development into the infrastructure while the tech part of unit development is more or less as strong as in Civilization 4.

In both games a big problem lies in that some techs are worth so much more then the rest. In Civilization 4 military technologies was so strong because the best investment in that game was in nearly all cases the military and otherwise technologies was mainly researched for their trade value.

In Civilization 5 infrastructure is more important as you can not invest an abitary high number of resources into your military but the important infastructure is often limited to what help you science to grow as science basically follow a feedback loop that you invest in science to get even more science. Given that you can only have a limited number of units on the field military techs are as important in Civilization 4 and the rest of the technologies are of very limited value.

 

[civvver]

Are tech trades coming back though? I hated research agreements in civ5 cus the other civs never want to agree to them. Trades were useful in 4, I wouldn't mind if they were gone per say as long as the mechanic is replaced by something, which maybe active research is the replacement.

A big problem in Civilization 4 was that military investment basically always seemed superior to civilian one

I can't really agree with that. Yes, most strategies revolved around an early military tech for an early land grab like chariot rush, axe rush, sometimes sword rush, and expand off that, and/or getting to one of two key tech paths first, either steel for cannons or rifling, either for rifles or a cavalry rush. Almost all civ4 games do one of those things. Sometimes you hit a key military tech along the way like construction and elephants (resource driven more than tech), engineering for trebuchets or earlier military tradition with curissars. But yes, your tech paths normally did end at a particular military tech.

But that's not to say that civilian techs weren't important though. Many unlocked key bonuses like you already mentioned caste system. Code of laws to unlock that is a huge tech to get in the game, plus for the courthouses too. Literacy is also another one people go for often for the powerful great library, though it's a bit out of the way of everything else so the benefit has to be careful measured. Astronomy and overseas trade routes is a huge one, so is metal casting for forges, for production and happiness quite often. Currency is huge for building wealth, extra trade and markets which are often needed for happiness. A lot of techs really boost your commerce or production and are pretty key in getting to those military techs and having enough hammers to build armies. And then there's currency and alphabet so you can convert hammers into gold or research as needed and not let overwhelming maintenance mess you up too badly. I really disagree with saying all the key techs are military ones.

Civ5 is less revolving around military because the upgrade between units isn't as drastic. Part of it is due to health, you can have 2-3 older units kill a brand new one more easily, and part of it is due to ranged attacks. Archers can remain relevant for a while. Civ4 the only comparison is a huge stack of trebuchets can still mess up rifles, and artillery and cannon remain relevant for a long time just cus of collateral damage. But yeah, there's a gigantic leap from muskets/knights to rifles/cavalry. The leaps are as bad in civ5 so you can lag behind in military.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

In both games a big problem lies in that some techs are worth so much more then the rest. In Civilization 4 military technologies was so strong because the best investment in that game was in nearly all cases the military and otherwise technologies was mainly researched for their trade value.

No, the military technologies were strong because they conferred the ability to kill five times as many hammers in enemy troops as you invested routinely (often more). Civ V does not do that, and you can often get the AI to throw away hammers even with tech deficit, so military techs are not as strong.

All other cities could just focus on hammers who was a very flexible resource with the main purpose to produce an army and with that army you could bring down weaker civilization and use their cities to help you build up an even stronger to bring down stronger and stronger civilization, the game did not really have any sort of expansion cap as city maintenance cost was pretty limited in its effectiveness and could be cut in half with a relative cheap courthouse, pretty much the goal of the game was just to expand after you got some key techs and the best way to expand was to invest as much resources into your army as possible.

And yet, in Civ IV you could win with 3 cities even on deity, never expanding at all, though six was more comfortable.

There was actual incentive to expand past an arbitrary set point, yes, and expansion was an attractive prospect to incentivize warfare. Encouraging conflict for more than denial is a good thing for the game, it forces players to pay attention to military with significant resources even if not pursuing military win conditions, to the extent that you would more consistently opt to delay victory to delay dying long enough.

Most Civ IV strats in SP involved researching civilian techs anyway since AI tended to go military and tech trades are broken. Using tech trades in MP is instant/inane imbalance and not worth discussion; larger research bloc wins.