Anyone else feel the tech tree is a bit janky in some places?

[sTAPler27]

Like why is "Discipline" a civic but "Feudalism" is a tech. Both are more or less organizational structures but one is cultural and the other is scientific. Making some of these tech in the first place reinforces the idea that unlike civics which are more about creating a culture that fits your needs, techs are blanket boosts that are objectively right. This goes back to civ 6 where there'd be no reason to not research feudalism because your advancement as a civ hinges on it and benefits greatly from it. Basically it says "this phase of thinking is objectively right for this time". These should be things that lead to optional policy choices, you should be able to ignore these ideas if they don't benefit you, not the rational next step.

The fact you can't go beyond the limits of the age is also wild as well. Sorry Mayans even though you were great at astronomy in antiquity you can't research it because it was deemed too advanced for the arbitrary period of time you're locked into. And the pre req techs make no sense at times. Like sorry, gun powder is an uncompressible magic because knowledge of heraldry is crucial to it. Like I understand the need for a tech tree, for example a culture that can't domesticate beasts of burden would probably have less of a need for a wheel but heraldry is a relatively niche cultural practice and really isn't even a technology. It's like if you got barred from inventing the steam engine because you didn't invent calligraphy first.

I do think the mastery system is good because it means you can devote less time to things that don't benefit your culture which mirrors how certain technologies and concepts are overlooked in real life but at the end of the day given how narrow the tech tree is and how much progress hinges off of a few bottleneck techs you cannot avoid them.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Like why is "Discipline" a civic but "Feudalism" is a tech. Both are more or less organizational structures but one is cultural and the other is scientific. Making some of these tech in the first place reinforces the idea that unlike civics which are more about creating a culture that fits your needs, techs are blanket boosts that are objectively right. This goes back to civ 6 where there'd be no reason to not research feudalism because your advancement as a civ hinges on it and benefits greatly from it. Basically it says "this phase of thinking is objectively right for this time". These should be things that lead to optional policy choices, you should be able to ignore these ideas if they don't benefit you, not the rational next step.

The fact you can't go beyond the limits of the age is also wild as well. Sorry Mayans even though you were great at astronomy in antiquity you can't research it because it was deemed too advanced for the arbitrary period of time you're locked into. And the pre req techs make no sense at times. Like sorry, gun powder is an uncompressible magic because knowledge of heraldry is crucial to it. Like I understand the need for a tech tree, for example a culture that can't domesticate beasts of burden would probably have less of a need for a wheel but heraldry is a relatively niche cultural practice and really isn't even a technology. It's like if you got barred from inventing the steam engine because you didn't invent calligraphy first.

I do think the mastery system is good because it means you can devote less time to things that don't benefit your culture which mirrors how certain technologies and concepts are overlooked in real life but at the end of the day given how narrow the tech tree is and how much progress hinges off of a few bottleneck techs you cannot avoid them.

I can see how Feudalism would be optimizing an industrial system and therefore a technology, but I do agree that it is an unnatural fit for something that is very much social and economic, both of which are solidly in civics' wheelhouse (although science does seem to still have economic features like currency). I do see what they are going for by the meaning though in the progression from cartography -> guilds/feudalism -> education, since education is kind of a product of both havens of knowledge (guilds) and a more organized public structure (feudalism). What I think "feudalism" means here is "urban planning," but of course in most societies something feudal was the first idea of urban planning that happened long before we really solidified the importance of that as a technological development.

I definitely do find it thoroughly wrong that astronomy is so late. That just needs to change. Although thank everything that is good that astrology is no longer a tech like in VI. That was just offensive, so offensive. And honestly might have been a huge reason why I just stopped playing VI early on.

What I would change, which I think makes for the fewest mechanical changes while making buttloads more sense:

* Astronomy, Currency, Bronze Working, The Wheel -> Navigation, Engineering, Military Training

and

* Machinery, Heraldry, Cartography -> Glass, Castles, Feudalism, Guilds; or
* Heraldry, Machinery, Cartography -> Feudalism, Castles, Printing, Guilds -> Shipbuilding, Metallurgy, Education

And then reshuffle the unlocks a bit to accommodate the changes.

Obviously this may all have happened due to some particular new systems/structures in the exploration era that required some weird ordering of pre-requisites, but, (1) I kind of don't care, the tech tree should be able to warp around that instead of looking dumb like this and (2) there is no world in which starting exploration with "astronomy" is fun or exciting. Offhandedly, I think the idea the devs had was that "we are gonna explore, but you need to learn how to keep track of geography and time first and foremost!" But that just seems borderline insulting to a player/civ every time they progress to exploration, needing to research a "requirement" that all civs probably were aware of long before even their "classical" era: the keeping of time. It's the equivalent of starting ever new college class with "okay, we are going to learn how to count to ten," and imo the "crisis" periods are supposed to cut out all the boring stuff so we can leap immediately into an exciting new era. Heraldry just makes much, much more sense in that position: you start out your new era picking which stupid animal will represent your kingy kingdom.

Also, another related gripe, but WHY is antiquity "science on top, military on bottom," while exploration is "military on top, science on bottom"? One of those eras should be totally flipped on the horizontal axis.

 

[sTAPler27]

Heraldry just makes much, much more sense in that position: you start out your new era picking which stupid animal will represent your kingy kingdom.

They should've just made Heraldry a civic imo. Like what about it makes it a technology? Should've also been more broadened to like "national imagery" to make it more applicable to more civs paths

 

[AriochIV]

Heraldry unlocks military units. Putting that in the civics tree is problematic for military empires focusing on technology.

The names of technologies since Civ5 really have very little to do with what they unlock.

 

[RedCourtJester]

They should've just made Heraldry a civic imo. Like what about it makes it a technology? Should've also been more broadened to like "national imagery" to make it more applicable to more civs paths

Actually yes, you are right. It's astrology all over again, almost in a very literal sense given that it's self-identifying with animal symbols.

I do like the idea of it better at the very beginning of the exploration tree instead of being buried alongside feudalism and castles. At least then it suggests that what follows from declaring a renaissance idea of "monarchy" (which is effectively is what it represents), and from that monarchy you are then able to build castles (hubs for military defense and commerce) and control feudal lands (organize labor the military). Still not really much of a tech in itself, but a much better symbolic starting point for the new age than astronomy.

I think that there is a reason why we have 3 into 4 techs at the beginning, to really emphasize option and choice in a way to contrast the wide-but-obligatory bottlenecking at the end of the antiquity era. And that I'm fine with. And I do think that 4 techs is still the sweet spot for that second column, because when you remove heraldry (regardless of whether you put it in the prior column), you are still left with a really awkward leap across techs to get from manufacturing to metallurgy. You have castles (military/architecture), feudalism (economics/labor), guilds (aristocracy/education), but there's no actual "techy tech" in that column akin to manufacturing, metallurgy, metal casting, etc., which I think the exploration age really wants to have. Hence why I still think a fourth printing or glass would help organize thoughts a lot better.

Heraldry unlocks military units. Putting that in the civics tree is problematic for military empires focusing on technology.

The names of technologies since Civ5 really have very little to do with what they unlock.

Yes, they are a bit arbitrary since, but I still think the grouping and ordering of unlocks is a little flexible to allow for less counterintuitive tech progressions.

 

[sTAPler27]

Actually yes, you are right. It's astrology all over again, almost in a very literal sense given that it's self-identifying with animal symbols.

You're like the only person I think who's pointed out how odd that is and I totally agree. Every other religious aspect unlocks in the civics tree but not astrology. Like I respect that a lot of faiths are tied to the celestial bodies and that those beliefs influenced astronomy but if the Theater Square is a civic tree unlock then why isn't the Holy Site? Like while for the most part the devs get techs and civics pretty right a lot of things just blur the line. Now that I think about it Economics is a tech in civ 6 but Communism and Capitalism are civic tree unlocks. You could adopt an entire economic system with defined theory without knowing the field of economics

 

[dagriggstar]

Yeah I'd rather see the tech tree possess like, physical advancements and leave the rest for the civics tree. Imagine putting education in the civics tree so then you have to decide whether you want more science now but comparatively less later or less science now for more later ?
I guess the tree as it stands, if we say something like "where is the printing press" or "where are telescopes" it could kinda all fit under machinery. Something like crop rotation I'd still put in technology, since it's like learning about the land, doesn't seem to be in the tech tree at present.

But honestly, especially with the new ages thing, why not put like 40 technologies in each age but not all of them are relevant ? If I have no Iron, why not have obsidian working instead ?

 

[RedCourtJester]

You're like the only person I think who's pointed out how odd that is and I totally agree. Every other religious aspect unlocks in the civics tree but not astrology. Like I respect that a lot of faiths are tied to the celestial bodies and that those beliefs influenced astronomy but if the Theater Square is a civic tree unlock then why isn't the Holy Site? Like while for the most part the devs get techs and civics pretty right a lot of things just blur the line. Now that I think about it Economics is a tech in civ 6 but Communism and Capitalism are civic tree unlocks. You could adopt an entire economic system with defined theory without knowing the field of economics

Truth, but I do think that, at its heart, even the most rudimentary economics were developed as a fairly rational practice, rather than an ethical/political practice. And once we got to the point of defining "economics," it absolutely was about numbering the numbers than about any particular person's welfare.

Now, granted, if you view history (and control over politics and the means of production/technological development) as always having been in control of the landed elites, then things get fuzzier. Because they have generally been the ones motivating and calculating the economics in favor of a de facto aristarchy/oligarchy. Very few points in "civilized" history has this not been the case. But if we go down that route, we probably start to see a lot of things we view as "science" and "advancement" either came from the exploitation of the masses, or were reappropriated to exploit the masses. A lot of modern food staples? Industrial-war complex developments for soldiers, monopolized by Big Agro and Big Food (and the restaurants by private equity firms). Petroleum-based manufacturing and transportation industries? Big Oil/Big Coal old money interests sustained by the industrial-war complex. Television/Internet/Consumer tech/Social Media? All quickly monopolized by Big Media and Big Tech. Cool new technology that made it to your home? Also probably industrial-war complex (NASA), if not subject to free student labor at universities being financially controlled by front porch sports programs that are in the pockets of, you guessed it, Big Media. Pharmaceuticals, medical devices, health services? Private equity firm holdings.

 

[chaosprophet]

While there is a basic idea behind what is civics and what is techs, ultimately it is all about game balance with some "representation" (some names of tech/civics that they need to have there as it was a technology/idea that was really important).

I prefer they give priority when it comes to civic sand tech to gameplay and balance, and am okay with how it ends up as long as it makes a modicum of sense.

 

[sTAPler27]

If I have no Iron, why not have obsidian working instead ?

Apparently if you don't have horses or iron you can still build the units that require them which feels like waste with the new resource system. I did hear through that elephant resources are no longer just ivory but function like a horse resource.

 

[chaosprophet]

Apparently if you don't have horses or iron you can still build the units that require them which feels like waste with the new resource system. I did hear through that elephant resources are no longer just ivory but function like a horse resource.

That seems ultimately a decision to make so the idea of strategic resources still has an important value (if you're actively building a strong military, having the bonus by having the resource is a clear advantage compare to a civ that doesn't have it) but not make it so you don't have access to it at all if you get unlucky when the map was generated, specially for resources which aren't visible at the start, so even if the map generator make so you had one near you not being able to see it may mean you develop in a different direction. And while less important, I think this can also make more sense, where resources would represent an abundance of the resource there, and not that there isn't iron at all anywhere else but that few places, for example.

 

[Takfloyd]

No care whatsoever has gone into the tech trees from Civ 5 onward. They're just a game mechanic instead of an immersive reflection of history. Techs never have logical requirements or progressions anymore. It's more important to the devs that the tech tree looks neat and tidy than having it make sense.

It's one of the things that turn me away from the newer games and always make me return to Civ 4.

 

[JNR13]

The fact you can't go beyond the limits of the age is also wild as well. Sorry Mayans even though you were great at astronomy in antiquity you can't research it because it was deemed too advanced for the arbitrary period of time you're locked into.

I guess they didn't deserve to "thrive in their own idiom wherever they fit within the game, and not be beholden to the calendar"...

That aside, it seems that the devs follow a gameplay-first approach where techs and civics are named after the unlocks have been placed. Despite the nostalgia for older games, I think that's the right way to do it because attempting a "realism" first tech tree is an endeavour inevitably set up to fail because the abstraction that is the tech/civics tree as such is already deeply unhistorical. It's just not how progress worked. Older games weren't doing this better, the oddities in the tech tree have been a meme as old as civ, basically. So with the mechanic itself being a gameplay gimmick, it just makes sense to me to prioritize gameplay all the way.

That being said, they could probably find better names that are more "tech-y" or more "civic-y" for some stuff. I'm more concerned about gameplay though. I'm not sure I like the wave form of the layout, expanding and then contracting again in choices in each game. I'd prefer a branching tree that leads to more tech skipping. It wouldn't be very consequential for the next age, so the fallout would be limited, but it would make empires of a given era more distinct.

Further, I don't like buildings being so tech-heavy overall. Even both culture buildings unlock on the tech tree. The Altar (and possibly the Villa) seems to be the only building unlock on the civics tree. Limiting civics too much to policies can make them feel underwhelming because if you don't want to slot a given policy, unlocking the respective civic is just "yea whatever..." whereas unlocking a building or unit usually feels rewarding and makes you think about the new possibilities you just got.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Mayan calendar might be one of their unique civics.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Honestly the research trees have always been a bit wonky in the Civ games. An unavoidable side effect of trying to condense thousands of years of technological and societal progress into a few dozen items to research, I'd say.

 

[dagriggstar]

I mean don't get me wrong like it's important for the tech tree to have an easy layout, if I LAN 6 with my friends and use tech shuffle the newer players can get confused about what leads to what. But why can't there be both ? Like surely it's just an exercise in how much time they want to spend designing the tree ?
We have Heraldry at the moment which unlocks knights, flag icon ?, marriage icon ?. I'm going to guesstimate that the flag is an infantry unit because otherwise there's no infantry until the 4th column which I don't think makes sense with knights so early ?
In that case why isn't the technology called like "plate armour" which could apply to unlocking knights and infantry ? I'd then argue that if the rings are for diplomatic marriages, well marriage is a social construct belongs in the civics tree surely ? You could even argue that "plate armour" could apply to diplomatic marriages about as much as heraldry does anyway with the immense amount of shields used in heraldry ?

 

[rocksinmypath]

There's no good justification for having both science and culture in the game because they're not distinct enough. There's a similar problem for gold and faith in Civ 6. Both are currencies that can be spent anywhere in your empire, unlike production, which can only be spent where it's earned. Gold and faith are even spent mostly on the same stuff (i.e. builders and settlers), so only really one of them deserves to co-exist with production. Thankfully, faith will not feature in 7, and gold has been repurposed as the exclusive currency for developing towns.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like much work has been done to alleviate the redundancy between the two "progress currencies". In 6, the devs tried to justify having both science and culture by trying to evenly allocate unlockables to the tech and civic trees. They did this by splitting units, districts, buildings, wonders, etc. across the two trees. Technically, the set of science unlockables is mutually exclusive with the set of culture unlockables, so you could argue science and culture serve two different purposes, but the split is both arbitrary and superficial. It's arbitrary because, like in the Discipline vs. Feudalism example, sometimes there's no reason apparent to the player why some things should be part of one tree and not the other. It's superficial because they're both progress currencies with empire-level scope, and at a higher level, they give you the same things. That is, commercial hub and theatre square are different districts, but they're still both districts. At the very least, none of the high-level features in the tech tree should be part of the civic tree, which should more or less only contain policies. I'd go a step further and try to remove the civic tree altogether for a radically different experience when it comes to government policies.

 

[sTAPler27]

There's no good justification for having both science and culture in the game because they're not distinct enough. There's a similar problem for gold and faith in Civ 6. Both are currencies that can be spent anywhere in your empire, unlike production, which can only be spent where it's earned. Gold and faith are even spent mostly on the same stuff (i.e. builders and settlers), so only really one of them deserves to co-exist with production. Thankfully, faith will not feature in 7, and gold has been repurposed as the exclusive currency for developing towns.

Unfortunately, it doesn't look like much work has been done to alleviate the redundancy between the two "progress currencies". In 6, the devs tried to justify having both science and culture by trying to evenly allocate unlockables to the tech and civic trees. They did this by splitting units, districts, buildings, wonders, etc. across the two trees. Technically, the set of science unlockables is mutually exclusive with the set of culture unlockables, so you could argue science and culture serve two different purposes, but the split is both arbitrary and superficial. It's arbitrary because, like in the Discipline vs. Feudalism example, sometimes there's no reason apparent to the player why some things should be part of one tree and not the other. It's superficial because they're both progress currencies with empire-level scope, and at a higher level, they give you the same things. That is, commercial hub and theatre square are different districts, but they're still both districts. At the very least, none of the high-level features in the tech tree should be part of the civic tree, which should more or less only contain policies. I'd go a step further and try to remove the civic tree altogether for a radically different experience when it comes to government policies.

Science and Culture could be very much distinct if they just specify what they are. Cultural Ideas should be processes and traditions, ways of thinking. Science should often result in physical applications and products. There is some overlap however but those things can be worked around. They just need a better operational definition for what is a tech and what is a civic.

 

[AriochIV]

Libraries and research academies generate science. Theaters and art museums generate culture. I think those are two pretty distinct things.

Having culture unlock items in a tree just like technology is a questionable game design choice, but science and culture are definitely different things.

 

[moysturfurmer]

If all progression is done through a single yield, that just makes that yield way too important. Could they go further in mechanically differentiating the two currencies? Sure, but I can’t think of a good way to do that off the top of my head.