Bye Bye Tech Tree.....

[ukcivfan]

Ok, so it's probably to late now to make any drastic changes to Civ 5, but I can't help but think that the tech tree in Civ needs a massive overhaul.


As much as I love the tech tree, it has hardly changed in size and scope for ages. Sure, there is a few changes around the edges with a few new techs being added and a few being lost, but fundamentally it doesn't really change, between Civs.

More importantly is the fact that it never changes from game to game


I would like to see that change. Civ is about choice, but often with tech, you have very little choice. Players have very little incentive to deviate radically from certain paths, indeed you could argue it isn't possible to deviate radically! There may be a little tweeking from here to there depending on circumstances and current aims, but the importance of this is far far smaller than other decisions. Go to war at the wrong time and and it can be the difference between victory and defeat, but vary rarely, if at all is this the case with the order at which you research tech.


To change this, I would make it so that no two games had the same tech tree. Indeed, no two civs in a game would have the same tech tree either.


I would create significantly more techs and then only have a limited number of them be available during the game. What becomes available should not be pre determined but should be decided based on what natural resources you have, the type of territory you occupy and the way in which you are playing the game.


For example, increase the number of sea faring techs, but only allow a Civ that 1) has large coastal borders 2) are constantly building ships - to have the complete set available. Of course it works the other way, it may mean you can dominate the sea, but it will have been at the cost of other techs elsewhere.


You could have these trade offs in almost all areas of the tech tree. Doing this would give your tech choices far far more significance. Should you be a jack of all trades, or should you specialise intensely? The decision you make early on could be crucial. It really would open up the game strategically in a way which it isn't at the moment.



What do people think? Please let me know

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Civ is about choice, but often with tech, you have very little choice.

Interesting idea. I see two problems: First, not having tech though you know it is there is frustrating. Master of Orion 2 had something like that for some race, and it simply wasn't fun. Second, balance. It would be hard not to give X an advantage over Y.

It would be more realistic, that is sure -- think of iron working and Native Americans, or all the countries that don't have nuclear power. I'm just not sure it would work in a game.

 

[Mercade]

As you say, this sort of fundamentals aren't going to be changing when the game is going to come out shortly.

I do agree that the tree is mostly static and whether you can choose to do X first and then Y, or Y first and then X, in the end you'll have searched both of them.

However, I don't really see how that can be radically changed to make it more interesting. It's also complex since a lot of stuff is tied to the tech trees like unit availability, worker actions and wonders.

 

[arstal]

Elemental is doing what you describe.

It's a combination of Alpha Centauri's blind research+ random techs that can pop up rarely from game to game.

 

[PieceOfMind]

The basics of how the tech tree has worked has been the same since civ1. Sid Meier himself as commented on how very very bad a gameplay feature it was when players did not have full control over what tech they wanted to research. I'm not sure exactly why they got away with it in Alpha Centauri - maybe it was considered acceptable enough because it was no longer based on human history.

They got it right with civ1 - a static tech tree that didn't change from game to game. I don't think they would change that in civ5, and I don't think they should either. It's far too important to the civilization core gameplay.

Good players like to learn a lot of things about the tech tree and build that into their strategies. If the tech tree changed from game to game, they would probably find it infinitely frustrating and probably would be angry at the change. Let's also not forget that most of the prerequisites in the tech tree make a lot of sense. There isn't a lot of freedom to swap and change prerequisites.

 

[Ahriman]

but I can't help but think that the tech tree in Civ needs a massive overhaul.

I would expect it to get a massive overhaul. It has been very different going from each Civ game to the next. eg. the Civ3 tree was one of the worst, with large numbers of empty techs that did nothing.

More importantly is the fact that it never changes from game to game

...but I really see this at all, this would just make things hopelessly confusing.

Make it so that you have incentives to follow a different path each game? Sure.
(eg. start near good crops, go for agriculture, start with horses, go for a cavalry path, etc.)
This is the way to create variation between games/factions.

And make it so that there are OR options as in Civ4, so there are different ways to get to particular techs.

But making it so the tree changed would just make it very hard to plan or figure out any kind of effective strategy.

Sid Meier himself as commented on how very very bad a gameplay feature it was when players did not have full control over what tech they wanted to research

Precisely. Very frustrating.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Sid Meier himself as commented on how very very bad a gameplay feature it was when players did not have full control over what tech they wanted to research.

I may have exaggerated a tad, but Sid said that players enjoyed a game a lot more when they were in control - the one responsible for the construction of a magnificent empire rather than a mere observer of a simulation.

 

[NBAfan]

There is a Civilization board game that does not have a tech tree.

 

[Ahriman]

There is a Civilization board game that does not have a tech tree.

Yes, but it is a very much simpler game.

 

[Stormbolt]

Sid Meier actually talked about the idea of a random tech tree at his GDC keynote speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY7aRJE-oOY
Start at 27:25

 

[Auncien]

I would really just like to see more techs on the tree.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I'm pretty sure that they have said there will be 3 (?) different paths you can go down in the tech tree, it it will be almost impossable to get all techs. Also depending on what path and/or combination of paths you choose you do get some sort of bonus. That sounds like a new, and interesting change to me, I can't wait! Btw I got steam, bought Oblivion for 9$, and now am playing offline mode, and so far so good! Hahah sorry haven't posted in a few days cause of that, Im loving the game!

Edit, source- Computer Bild Spiele, German magazine- 6. New "Civilisation tree": This tree has a lot of astles, called "Social Policies". These astles contain certain paths, one of them is the path of "Tradition". Each of these astles gives a civ a certain advantage (per example special units). A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn´t make such a deep progress in each of these paths.

 

[toft]

They could easily do a Fog of War effect over the tech tree, so it at least feels a bit like discovering something new. Then I wouldnt be able to click "Industrialism" in 4000BC and just lean back in the chair and forget about tech.

With that in mind they could also put some RNG in the tech tree. What if you were to research writing, but you didnt really know what would be coming after that tech. You would know that it would be 1 of 3 possible tech, but this would change in each game. You should of course be able to research all tech, but not in the exact same order each time.

The unknown tech in this case, could then be Mathematics, Alphabet or Aestetics. If it turned out to be Alphabet, then the next in line would be either Mathematics, Aestetics or Currency. Makes sence? There should of course be multiple paths, and not just one like this example. I just didnt want to photoshop the entire techtree.

:: EDIT :: Tech tree should be the same for all players, but only change slightly with each new game based on the random seed. So you are on equal terms, but you never really know what to expect, thus making the discovery of a new tech interesting.

 

[ddd123]

that would completely screw multiplayer, who get the best option of tech tree would win and it sux


maybe some hybrid choice could work, but introducing randomness is never good

 

[Trias]

Something one could do with the tech tree to make it more interesting and diverse is to introduce more dead end techs with temporary benefits. This could be relatively minor techs that give a boost to a certain unit.

For example you could have a long-handled axes minor tech with bronzeworking as a prereq, with a similar effect to the random event. It would itself serve as a prereq and thus be useless unless your are build many axes.

This introduces an interesting choice. Do I go deep into the tech tree, or do I invest in a side branch to gone a temporary advantage. This also introduce a natural breaking effect on a scientific lead, because to to really take advantage of the lead a player needs to invest in the dead-ends. A player, playing catch might take the gambit and skip some of the side branches.

You could even make some of these dead end techs the scientific equivalent of wonders, that only give a bonus to the first civ to reach them. (Like the liberalism effect in civ4.)

This would also be an interesting approach to Unique units, making them based on the players choices during the game rather than at the beginning of the game.

 

[Earthling]

It would be a terrible option for balance to deny access to certain techs or worse, randomize between civs.

However, I think the main issue that should be addressed is tech trading itself, and how that relates to the competition between civs. In current models - civ III and civ IV for instance, when tech trading is ubiquitous the game becomes streamlined because certain lines of technology research just don't become worth it. Main techpaths become necessary and the AI only trade for the stuff on the side.

If I ever get around to a mod of civ IV of my own I'd actually have major changes to the tech system, but I can't say the same would work in civ V so that's really a tangent. I'll describe briefly for background though - what I would do is before the Renaissance split all research, of every civ, into a line of basic development, and directed research, and limit control of the slider - it would all open up around education/printing press though. Then, research from neighbors is also split. Directed research is still directed, but it's essentially only half your research. (one other caveat - specialists would give research entirely to your own civ. Representation of course loses beakers to specialists for some universal bonus applied for free come the middle ages, but that's other stuff). Then, the "world technology" is a pool shared by all civs, and it goes through basic techs in a somewhat defined, somewhat random order, working it's way up from the very beginning until the cut off at the middle ages. This way, tech is both more equal between civs - it's hard for someone to take off completely from their neighbors, but monopolies become way more distinctive and important and I'd weight the AI accordingly.

Example:
Player has tech at 80% early in the game (say that's the max, though that could be changeable). 40%, or half of this, is required to go into the world technology pool. Now, say the player wants Iron Working, so that's what they are researching, and it progresses like normal. But then, the "world tech" would go into whatever available tech is next - say in this game the basic level had progressed through the first row, picked up pottery and animal husbandry, and now it was on Sailing. So an entirely separate tech bar would be working on Sailing. The player's input to "world tech" would go towards Sailing and also towards neighbors on their world techs, similarly, part of the neighbor's research would go towards the player getting Sailing. Again, any lightbulbing or specialists or other sources of directed research could help the player along towards his or her own specific goal. And civilizations could even "mooch" off of others if they just turned their tech way down to get gold, and allowed only the pittances of the "world tech" to get some research from others, at the cost of losing any real directed research themselves.

But anyway, I do not see civ 5 implementing anything really exciting, given that a major goal seems to be to SIMPLIFY gameplay in almost every way, a static tech tree will almost certainly be around.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm pretty sure that they have said there will be 3 (?) different paths you can go down in the tech tree, it it will be almost impossable to get all techs. Also depending on what path and/or combination of paths you choose you do get some sort of bonus. That sounds like a new, and interesting change to me,

Edit, source- Computer Bild Spiele, German magazine- 6. New "Civilisation tree": This tree has a lot of astles, called "Social Policies". These astles contain certain paths, one of them is the path of "Tradition". Each of these astles gives a civ a certain advantage (per example special units). A civ can follow one of these paths strictly and make a deep progress in that tree on that path, but the civ can also follow parallel several different paths but doesn´t make such a deep progress in each of these paths.

This is discussing social policies, not technologies. It does not provide support for the claim "different paths you can go down in the tech tree, it it will be almost impossable to get all techs"

It does pose an interesting possibility that social/governmental advances (fascism, liberalism, monarchy, etc.) might be taken *out* of the tech tree and put purely into the social policy tree.

 

[BobDole]

I think messing with the tech tree in such a radical way is too risky. No matter what Firaxis does, one tech will always be more powerful/useful than another, so if you randomize it and some guy ends up with easy access to a great tech and other civs don't.....game over potentially (imagine being stuck without the tech for Iron and a nearby opponent got that tech in a nice position in his tech tree). I think the devs are better off trying to make the each tech as useful possible so you have a real decision to make when considering what to research. But even then, it's still nice having some of those game-changing techs that really alter how the game is played at that particular point in the game. Overall.....if it's not broken, don't fix it. It could use some refinement, but I don't think any radical changes are happening for the tech tree.

 

[toft]

that would completely screw multiplayer, who get the best option of tech tree would win and it sux


maybe some hybrid choice could work, but introducing randomness is never good

It shouldn't be a random seed for each player. It should be the same tech tree for all players, but the tech tree is just a little different from game to game.

 

[fromeast2west]

The idea of having different trees for tech and social is interesting. One of the things that I like about Civ is that it let's us play 'What If' to a certain extent.

What if we could could create a society free of religion?

What if we focused on commerce and agriculture instead of culture?

With the way the current tree is set up, some of the dependencies don't make sense, and force us to basically research everything. Why is wine tied to a social/religious tech? In Rev. why is dye tied to Monarchy?