Diverging Tech Trees, Mini-Branches, Strategic Dilemmas

[Aussie_Lurker]

You know, though, I have always felt that they put the 'cart before the horse' when it came to the whole tech/resource relationship. Although having a tech which uses a resource should make it more likely for said resource to appear, said appearance should not be contingent on having the tech. By the same token, having a quantity of a resource should make it easier to obtain those techs which make use of the resource (iron in iron working, copper in bronze working). If you don't believe me, when the first cultures discovered copper (Green Malachite I think it was found in??) they simply used it in its solid form. It was only later on that certain tribes and villages started to heat it-and mix it with other metals-prior to fashioning into tools and weapons.
The same was somewhat true with iron, and coal-just to name a few.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

On an almost totally irrelevant note, and one that doubtless proves me the among the biggest nerds on the site, I object to the use of the word "beaker" for the science icons. Those are Erlenmeyer flasks. Beakers look a bit like cups with spouts. Erlenmeyer flasks have that unique almost conical shape for some reason I used to remember but not anymore.

Thanks,
TheDonkeyLikesHisChemClassButHatesHisTeacher

 

[Khan Quest]

Two concepts suggested in this thread, selecting a single divergent research path, and simultaneous research paths could both benefit from "research momentum".

If you select the Democracy path (in the example posted above), each successive tech in the linear path could be had at a discount, i.e. the research momentum. If you decide to instead, stop on the democracy path and research along the Military path, you would lose the bonus and have to start your momentum over. It could be something like 5% cheaper per linear tech, cumulative, to a maximum of 20%. This would reset to 5% at convergence points (or not).

With simultaneous research paths the momentum would encourage you to leave your % allotment fairly constant to maintain your momentum.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It makes sense AND it 'Makes Sense', if you know what I mean. Great idea Khan !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Also, I would like to see paths not necessarily be straight lines, but clusters of things that can be derived from the path. THis way you do not have to get everything in a path to continue and sometimes will not have access to certain things.

 

[Heat Miser]

I was doing some thinking (by the Khan, good Idea). My thought was that some techs are not mutually exclusive between Militarism/Democracy. If you had two main branches, why not have the mutually exclusive techs to the outer sides, but have convergent techs in the middle where crossovers between the main branches could occur. Ie. although Britain was very merchantile, there seaborn military tech was quite good. As for the Germans, although fairly militatistic, the still gave rise to the Hanseatic League.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey Aussie -- I think you should stop using the word "blind research" because it really does an injustice to your idea. While not absolutely tied to this thread, I definitely think it's a good one to incorporate into tech. How about "Stream-Focused Research", as opposed to the current "Technology-Picking Research"? Or something like that...

Heat Miser, I like the way you graphically set it up. And yes, there are definitely some technologies that everyone discovers in the same order. Those would be in the center row, after you've fulfilled all the techs to the left of them. The choice branches would veer off to the top and bottom, and reconverge with the center row.

But definitely something to keep in mind -- the paths aren't THAT bipolar. If you took the Democratic branch, you'd still get some units. If you took the Militaristic branch, you'd still get some social progress. And moreover, when you finally get back to the center branch, you'll eventually find both military and social progress. (That goes the same for whatever the "theme" of a branch is.)

Maybe I should draw a picture.

 

[sir_schwick]

I was hoping there would be branches within branches and probably many competing branches at a time, upwards of three or four. Some would end and converge into others or into crossroads. Also there would be clusters of 'dead-end' techs that are useful for certain situations.

 

[dh_epic]

Okay, because I'm a huge nerd, and because I'm getting paid by the hour, I figure I'd throw this together really quick. Most people probably knew what I was talking about, but this might help us with our discussions.

I deliberately left tech names out just to give the general idea. The particulars are worth fighting over later. (When I get my silly ass fired?)

Note a few salient features:

A: Mutually exclusive branches, based on a historical topic
B: Points of convergence, with techs that everyone gets.

Note a few features I didn't include:

1. More than one dilemma. (What about two or three splits?)
2. Trilemmas. (What about choosing between three paths?)
3. "Clusters" and branches within branches.

To explain #3 further, Note that while the two branches in the example have four techs in serial:

-[]-[]-[]-[]-

There's nothing to stop them from working into branches of their own, with clusters of techs you can research all at the same time.

....../--[]--[]-\
-[]<..............[]---[]--
......\----[]---/