Dark Ages

[warpstorm]

I kind of like the idea of a minimum amount of your economy going to fight stagnation. If you don't pay it, you lose access to techs you once knew and your cultural boundaries shrink. Once you pay back the deficit, you can progress as normal.

 

[judgement]

I kind of like the idea of a minimum amount of your economy going to fight stagnation. If you don't pay it, you lose access to techs you once knew and your cultural boundaries shrink. Once you pay back the deficit, you can progress as normal.

It wouldn't be unrealistic if you needed a minimum number of science beakers to merely break-even on tech research. Since it's things like libraries and universities that produce beakers, they can in some sense be thought of not only as resources allocated to research itself but also to resources allocated to education of the populance (in RL, universities do research themselves, but they also educate people, and educated people are more likely to be involved in scientific advancement even if they're no longer at a university). And, the more technologically advances a society is, the more education is required for people to simply keep up. Old-fashioned, agrarian societies don't need to mandate public schooling through high-school for all citizens, but by contrast, in a high-tech society like the modern US, even that amount of education is often considered not enough: the number of people getting college degrees and even graduate degree has skyrocketed compared to a century ago.

The point is, if science beakers are thought of as "science & education" beakers, then it makes sense to require a certain number just to properly educate your people (and that number is higher the more advanced you get). You'd need to have more than that minimum in order to make progress scientifically, and, if you had less than the minimum, you might be in danger of slipping backwards and temporarily losing certain techs.

Is losing tech realistic? I don't know. But it is realistic to have to spend more on the education of your people as you become more technologically advanced. The maintenance costs of libraries, universities, etc., don't really cover this since you could theoretically sell all of the improvements once you'd achieved a high tech level, and you'd still be able to maintain that high tech level without spending anything on science.

 

[Smoking mirror]

I had the idea once that, What if you had to have a physical repositry of all your civs knowledge? like a library? Your knowledge would be split and divided by all the libraries in your empire, if one was destroyed it would mean the loss of a random tech. Rmember that libraries can be destroyed in a number of ways, such as if a city is captured (as it is a cultural improvement) or if you allow your maintence to get above your income (where random city improvements or units are disbanded or sold to pay for the deficit).

Think about where this has happened in real life; The burning of the great libraby in alexandria by the christians bought a great dark age to europe.

Perhaps you would only need a few libraries that could hold multiple techs, this would make thier loss more of a blow, but it would mean that your empire size would not restrict your tech level (if only one tech per city= trouble). You could use a school improvement to replace the clasic civ role of the libarary.

 

[Pook]

Think about where this has happened in real life; The burning of the great libraby in alexandria by the christians bought a great dark age to europe.

The Great library was burned several times- the following site covers a number of theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria

Interesting idea, Smoking Mirror. Would the possibility of losing a tech when you lost a library go away after a civ discovers Printing Press?

 

[warpstorm]

The printing press was discovered multiple times, IRL. If anything it should only protect you.

 

[Pook]

The printing press was discovered multiple times, IRL. If anything it should only protect you.

Perhaps I didn't phrase it well enough- the Printing Press would protect you. My thought was that once your civilization discovers the printing press, your knowledge will be much more widely distributed. At that point it becomes really hard to lose knowledge. Having knowledge and not using it is another matter entirely....

 

[T_McC]

I like the idea of requiring a minimum of beakers/science buildings to prevent regression in technology. Although it would probably be best implemented as a damping factor to research rather than having the possibility to lose known technologies. Having to put forth a strong effort (non-lone scientist) to discover a new tech is a sensible game concept. Something like "The first n beakers towards a tech each turn are lost to inertia", with n scaling with tech cost or age. Completely does away with the exploit that a lone crackpot can discover Horseback Riding, Chivalry, Combustion, or Rocketry, each in just 50 turns.

Forgetting known techs could be seriously un-fun as a player. I think peudo-random events that can be completely game-breaking should be avoided. Under attack? Too bad, you just forgot how to build Cavalry. Or you forgot how to be a Republic. Welcome to Anarchy!

If one wanted to mimic a Dark Age induced by barbarians, how about this: If a massive uprising occurs in your territory (however defined), you get the message that "Our citizenry fears the Barbarians! They have put down their books and mobilized to defend themselves!". Beaker production would be locked at 0, but the player would get the mobilization shield benefit to produce units to put down the uprising. Once the uprising is quelled, the mobilization ends and research can resume. Might be possible if when the uprising occurs the Barbarians got a King unit. Kill the King unit, all the Barbarians go *poof*. Could be a good way to have research stopped for 6-8 turns, but give the player a direct means to make it start up again. And hunting barbs is more fun than a pseudo-anarchy.

 

[Pounder]

If one wanted to mimic a Dark Age induced by barbarians, how about this: If a massive uprising occurs in your territory (however defined), you get the message that "Our citizenry fears the Barbarians! They have put down their books and mobilized to defend themselves!". Beaker production would be locked at 0, but the player would get the mobilization shield benefit to produce units to put down the uprising. Once the uprising is quelled, the mobilization ends and research can resume. Might be possible if when the uprising occurs the Barbarians got a King unit. Kill the King unit, all the Barbarians go *poof*. Could be a good way to have research stopped for 6-8 turns, but give the player a direct means to make it start up again. And hunting barbs is more fun than a pseudo-anarchy.

I like this idea. Maybe giving barbs the ability to take a town would help has well, or maybe a least the barb King Unit can take a town. It is just too easy to just leave an empty town to destroy all the barbs right now.

 

[Pook]

'Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such self-help videos as "Smoke Yourself Thin" and "Get Some Confidence, Stupid!" '

T McC, I like these ideas also. I agree that there should be a minimum number of beakers to prevent regression- it could represent the infrastructure (scientists, teachers, labs, schools) needed to educate every new generation. I also like your idea of the barbarian uprising inducing a Dark Age. That gives me as a player some ability to influence the onset of the Dark Ages, rather than a random period of anarchy (and how would my domestic advisor know how long the anarchy would last, anyway?). However, if I don't respond well to the barbarian uprising, then perhaps I should lose some techs as part of a Dark Age.
As far as the Dark Ages being un-fun, I don't see that. As long as the AI has the same opportunity to stagnate or regress, I think it could add to the game.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Losing techs just makes no sense to me. Remember, the techs in Civilization represent "major breakthroughs." This isn't building a better mousetrap; it's understanding the very concept that mice can be killed without chasing them down and clubbing them to death. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the RL Dark Age was not Europe losing its technology, it was Western Rome being destroyed by the Barbarians with no scientifically adept nation to fill the void. Byzantium lost none of its knowledge, even though its neighbor was killed.

 

[Pook]

Mewtarthio, I've thought about it some more, and reread some of "The Day The Universe Changed" by James Burke, and your ideas make sense to me now. I kept thinking of the Western European Dark Age, when barbarians replaced the only game in town- the Romans. These barbarians were 'standing on the shoulders of giants', looking to the past for greatness rather than the future. Barbarian villages gave way to the manor system, and then to small kingdoms. When three of these small kingdoms in Spain banded together and reconquered Toledo in the 11th century, they discovered a wealth of Greek and Roman knowledge that had been preserved by Arab scholars.
Another example was the application of Roman law. In the Dark Age, kings and manor-lords and serfs had lots of laws from lots of different sources. They had fragments of Roman law, but no way to put it together, since the "Digest" reference guide had been lost (only two copies in existence, both lost, last seen in 603). When a copy of the "Digest" was found in the 1100s, it revolutionized the laws by which people lived.
Then I got to thinking some more- it wasn't the Romans who rediscovered lost knowledge- it was the Spanish who learned this knowledge for the first time. I now agree. A civ should not lose techs.

 

[SewerStarFish]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the Western European dark age. There are others (e.g. the great Mayan decline). I think there ought to be some way to work it in.

One simple way is a 50:50 chance of a period (say 10 turns) of half production/research {with maybe the loss of one advance} after a golden age. Not debilitating, and the odds could be modified with proper playtesting.

 

[Pounder]

Everyone seems to be focusing on the Western European dark age. There are others (e.g. the great Mayan decline). I think there ought to be some way to work it in.

One simple way is a 50:50 chance of a period (say 10 turns) of half production/research {with maybe the loss of one advance} after a golden age. Not debilitating, and the odds could be modified with proper playtesting.

Many Civ's have experienced major declines.

All Civ's do not grow forever, declines are a certainy.

 

[CyberChrist]

I don't understand the arguments for a civ NOT being able to loose technologies. If the passing down of knowledge was stopped or made impossible to perform, and recordings of that knowledge was destroyed or became unavailable for other reasons then surely that knowledge would (at least for a time) be lost - sooner or later.

Science beakers needed to keep existing knowledge sounds like a good idea at first, however it would make switching governments a very risky affair.

Another solution could be if Libraries, Universities etc. had an innate ability that allowed a certain amount of technologies to be held safely - lets call this ability for knowledge bank capacity. This knowledge bank capacity of Libraries, Universities etc. could then be further increased by discovering better recording medias/techniques (Printing Press etc.) and teaching methods(Scientific Method etc.). The total amount of techs a civ could hold safely would be the total sum knowledge bank capacity of all such improvements a civ owned.

Holding techs beyond your current max. knowledge bank capacity would then risk a collapse of knowledge resulting in a loss of all techs exceeding the max. knowledge bank capacity - taken randomly from the top of the tech stack. If one of the techs lost was one that increased the knowledge bank capacity in any way, the tech loss could suddenly become disastrous - like a house of cards comming down.

Loosing a Library, University etc. due to barbarian raiders, bombardments, sabotage, looting during civil disorder or a natural calamity could start a decline if civ was balancing on the edge of current max. knowledge bank capacity - not to mention what loosing an entire city might do.

A new diplomatic option should be introduced to arrange a scientific cooperative that would ensure those in the cooperative safety from loosing techs the others in cooperative was also holding. Perhaps even pool together the knowledge bank capacity of the civs in a cooperative making a shared max knowledge bank capacity (could prove a risky venture to enter into such a cooperative as other civ being wiped out or breaking cooperation would probably be a hard blow to knowledge bank capacity).

Wonders could also be augmented to help with this.
Ie. Great Library would give a great boost to the knowledge bank capacity and Internet would make owner a science cooperate with all other civs that also knew the secret of Computers without a formal treaty.

 

[sampedestal]

i've had my fair share of dark ages, and i don't need a random event to make things worse.

 

[judgement]

I don't understand the arguments for a civ NOT being able to loose technologies. If the passing down of knowledge was stopped or made impossible to perform, and recordings of that knowledge was destroyed or became unavailable for other reasons then surely that knowledge would (at least for a time) be lost - sooner or later.

The arguments against dark ages have nothing to do with whether they're realistic: in real life, many civs have indeed had periods of decline. The arguments against dark ages are about whether or not it would be fun to have them in this game. And I must admit I do see the point of such arguments, especially if the occurence of dark ages was random and uncontrollable. Realistic or not, dark ages could add a lot of frustration to the game and make it less fun if they're implemented carelessly. The game should never be made less fun just to be more realistic.

 

[Ballazic]

Ok I agree. Barbarians should cause it all.

 

[CyberChrist]

The arguments against dark ages have nothing to do with whether they're realistic: in real life, many civs have indeed had periods of decline. The arguments against dark ages are about whether or not it would be fun to have them in this game. And I must admit I do see the point of such arguments, especially if the occurence of dark ages was random and uncontrollable. Realistic or not, dark ages could add a lot of frustration to the game and make it less fun if they're implemented carelessly. The game should never be made less fun just to be more realistic.

I never spoke in favor of a randomly implemented Dark Age(reverse Golden Age), but civs should be able to loose techs if they paint themselves into a corner by researching/accuiring techs faster than they can safely sustain them by means of education/recordings - and possibly in dire circumstances on a cataclysmic scale that could be seen as the entry into a Dark Age (though still not by any firm period of sudden lesser production).

Keeping a balance between tech research speed vs tech sustainabilty would be another factor that would certainly add to my idea of what a fun game of civ is (or rather could be). After all isn't civ about building a nation/empire that can stand the test of time?

 

[judgement]

I never spoke in favor of a randomly implemented Dark Age(reverse Golden Age), but civs should be able to loose techs if they paint themselves into a corner by researching/accuiring techs faster than they can safely sustain them by means of education/recordings - and possibly in dire circumstances on a cataclysmic scale that could be seen as the entry into a Dark Age (though still not by any firm period of sudden lesser production).

Yes, I know you didn't, but you did support the losing techs idea with a realism-based argument, just after saying you didn't understand why people argue against it. I was merely pointing out that fun, not realism, is the motivation for many people's arguments.

Myself, I don't entirely agree that dark ages or losing techs would automatically be un-fun: I think a properly implemented mechanism for dark ages or potential to lose tech could add to the fun of the game (emphasis on properly implemented, of course). That's why I said "especially if the occurence... was random and uncontrollable." I think some mechanism to model decline could add fun, but only if you had some control over it. I think we agree on this. But its worth considering that there are people out there who don't think it would be fun, even if it wasn't random. To convince them, you'll need to argue more about how fun losing tech (or having it be possible, anyway) would be, not merely argue that it's logical that knowledge could be lost "sooner or later."

In other words, I wasn't arguing against you, just addressing your comment that you couldn't understand what the argument against losing tech was. In your reply, you addressed this somewhat by saying that keeping a balance between speed and sustainability would add to your fun... I agree, which is why I proposed the idea of "minimum beakers to sustain your current tech level" in the first place (You made a good point, though, that switching governments would be problematic with my idea).

 

[CyberChrist]

I think some mechanism to model decline could add fun, but only if you had some control over it. I think we agree on this. But its worth considering that there are people out there who don't think it would be fun, even if it wasn't random. To convince them, you'll need to argue more about how fun losing tech (or having it be possible, anyway) would be, not merely argue that it's logical that knowledge could be lost "sooner or later."

I think the model I proposed gives a lot of control - only someone blatantly ignoring this aspect or taking a gamble to keep/stay ahead in tech would be in the risk-of-loosing-techs zone.

You can't really argue people into finding something fun - normally either they do or they don't. It is totally subjective.