Diverging Tech Trees, Mini-Branches, Strategic Dilemmas

[dh_epic]

The Preamble (for Nerds)

Some of you may have seen this thought on a few other threads dealing with the tech tree. A lot of people have differing ideas of what would make the tech tree better, be it "blind research", more/less eras, new requirements and so on.

I had an idea that is inspired by reality -- where for centuries at a time, two nations diverge and progress in markedly different ways. They eventually re-converge, but often with noticable differences.

(There's a great book about this kind of thing called "The Real World of Technology". The idea is that technology doesn't just shape our life but our attitudes, and some innovations can push society in different ways. This is true of the Internet and ideas of Free Speech, or Chinese Bronzeworking and the early emergence of a Burocracy.)

An Example

For the sake of the argument, look at all the techs between gunpowder and nationalism (approximately half an era). The idea would be that there's two paths centered around metallurgy (say, between gunpowder, and nationalism).

The real life inspiration comes from medieval Europe. There were lots of peasant uprisings in the 1400s or so. In some cases, the peasants succeeded and there were big democratic reforms. In other cases, the peasants were thwarted by the might of the Lords above them, who had found new technologies to fortify their castles and so forth.

Realism is just a bonus. The real benefit is the idea of choosing your strategy, instead of merely racing through the techs. Say, after gunpowder, there are two paths to choose from. The militaristic path, and the democratic path.

Let's look at an example of the two path-choices.

The Two (Example) Paths

Militaristic Path: metallurgy (unit: cannons) --> fortification (improvement: castle, x2 defence) --> absolute monarchy (early Tyrannical government, unit: imperial guard, makes 2 unhappy citizens content) --> military tradition (cavalry) --> nationalism.

Democratic Path: populism (workers get 25% bonus speed) --> constitutional monarchy (early Democratic government, ) --> mercantilism (guild: +25% trade, production) --> free artistry (wonder: Shakespeare's Theatre) --> nationalism

Again, I'm just throwing out the specific techs and improvements on a whim. But the general idea is there. The military path gets you some killer military improvements and a government that aids a military style. The democratic path sacrifices said military improvements, but makes your society happier and more productive, including a government that aids this.

Other Branch Ideas

There's plenty to explore in this idea. Compare any two civilizations and find the inspiration for a branch.

The Near East versus Europe. Push towards Reformation, "Enlightenment" and the Scientific Method, or consolidate around Religious power and discover Fundamentalism?

Rome versus the Hebrews. Discover Monotheism in the ancient era and let religious thought guide you -- with more happiness and culture to boot. Or go for the "hard" benefits of iron, construction, and military might.

Ancient Greece. We can talk about discovering a technology *early*. You could discover the philosophical thought of Democracy one age early, but you would forego other advantages...

Summary

We're talking about dilemmas here. Many of the major techs would be the same, but with mini-branches in between. The ultimate path is the same, but the nuances are different. These nuances are what give your civilization subtle advantages and disadvantages. You're not just choosing between two techs, but two mutually exclusive strategies.

Major Effects

- More Strategic Choice: since they can't do it all, the player has real dilemmas that determine their overall strategy -- improve my society, or improve my ability to defend it?

- More Role Playing: while Civilization is not seen as an RPG, it is undeniable that we get into the mindframe of "this is the society I build, and these are its values". Tech tree dilemmas let us act out those values and differentiate ourselves. (We are a more pious people than the Japanese. We are a proud race of warriors with no respect for the weak.)

Minor Effects

- Less Tech Trading: players who go down different paths will have a hard time trading some technologies until they converge again.

- More Blocs: When there are two paths on the tech tree, choosing a path limits prevents you from trading technologies with those on the other path. Suddenly the world is cut in half based on who chose which path, and may impact who will stay friends and who will become enemies.

- Tech Manipulation: Suddenly you can push your less developed neighbors into your path. At the cross roads between a Military tech and a Social tech, you trade them the Social tech. This prevents them from getting a Military advantage on you. It also has a Bloc effect, giving you another tech-trading partner on your Social path, and isolating those on the Military path.

- More Realism: Note that I put this as a minor effect. Realism is just a bonus. Civilizations have diverged and converged throughout history. Now you can emulate those differences.

- Verisimilitude -- Rewrite History!: Not only does this let you emulate history, but lets England take a more "Chinese" path. Or lets the Ottomans take a more "European" path. While you're not constrained by how history actually unfolded, your choices are reasonably grounded. The end result is a game where history unfolds in unpredictable but believable ways.

Feedback

Do you have a beef with the idea that Civilizations have diverged in history, and should diverge in a game?

Is this cooler than religion?

How can this idea be improved, cleaned up, and refined?

What are some historical branches that might be cool to see?

 

[sir_schwick]

This idea is really good for a couple reasons.

1) It fits very well into the existing Civ consistency in terms of how technology looks, affects things, and flows.

2) It is a concept that can be collapsed or expanded as needed.


Here are a few things I would say on it:

- It would be really good if the branches were smaller, but many kinds of branches may result, or even branches within branches. The only real con would be a little bit of confusion when looking at techs.
- Tech trading should only give you a watered down version of techs not in your branches.
- If people are living in a society(read foreigners or traded techs) with techs on branches they have never seen or diverged from, it creates possible unhappiness. This means a conquered people who had never even had most of the techs you have will be very unruly, while those in a similair tech bloc can go after each other pretty easily.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In principle, I wholeheartedly support your ideas, DH_Epic. Not only that but, from what little we have heard about techs in civ4, it might in fact be very close to what you are suggesting.
If I have one 'issue' with your idea, it is pertaining to my 'pet idea' of 'Semi-Blind' research. i.e., the notion that you choose broad 'paths' to invest your research in, but have no ultimate control over the EXACT tech you recieve within that path. Could you see my 'pet idea' fitting into your model? If so, how would it work?
For what its worth, I think that having more 'branches' off of the main tech-tree might mean that, if a player has invested ALL (or nearly all) of his research into the military stream, then he will, obviously, be more likely to get the military techs on the main trunk of the tech tree. At the same, though, it might also make him MORE likely to get a military sub-tech than a social/cultural one. I confess that this is a tough one, what might your take on it be guys?

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Dr. Broom]

Great idea but a concern I have is that tech trading will be reduced which is the main trade going on, it can be your main source of income and that can go. Maybe this can be solved not only by reworking the tech system but adding other things which have been suggested such as quantified resource trading, selling food and selling military units. I really love trade, it is about the only thing in Civ III that lets a small nation become wealthy and powerful.

 

[sir_schwick]

In regards to blind research:

At crossroads and junctures you should get an active choice. However for all techs in between, blind research would dictate(with some sway by you) what advanced. Maybe we could return to the MOOI system of multiple tracks of research. Each branch would be such a track and gain 'interest' like the MOO system did.

Also, there should be plenty of dead end branches, or branches which dead end if you did not take certain other branches.

 

[dh_epic]

Aussie, see Sir Schwick. To reiterate, you could still make active choices at the crossroads, but many of the techs in between could still be done blindly. In the above example, I simplified things by having two linear paths wtih 4 consecutive technologies. In the actual game, you'd probably have two "clusters" to choose from. The techs in the cluster could come in any order -- and naturally, they could come in blind.

As for Dr. Broom's comment, that's something I'm a bit concerned with, too. I know this would probably be the most disappointing / contraversial loss for some people. (Other than the fact that this is a change, and some people seem to be against any and all change!)

But the tech trade strategy is almost an accident out of Civ's current design. While we're accustomed to it as veteran civ players, if someone were to pick up Civ 4 for the first time and it did not have this strategy, they would not feel as though it's missing. That's because, in the real world, there ISN'T a lot of tech trading -- trade is centered around goods, including weapons. And in that respect, you've answered your own question. Shift the importance of trade to tangible goods, instead of ideas. Of course, this is a whole other topic.

 

[Evie]

I don't think the branches should be exclusives ; IF you wanted, you should be able to back down and research the other branch too.

After all, even the militaristic nations of Europe eventually grew Constitutional monarchies.

 

[sir_schwick]

the nations that relied on their merchants for stability rather than their military(England and Denmark). however the branches go, the idea of choosing one and having to except watered-down verisons of the other techs is important

 

[Evie]

Except that "watering down" is a fuzzy concept at best. Do you make it not grant certain units? Or does it grant a weaker version of the unit? What about governments? And improvements?

Watering down sounds good in theory ; trying to make it actually work isn't nearly so easy.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, the way I see it, there are a few ways to do things:

1) Make techs on the main 'TRUNK' of the tech tree consist primarily of 'mixed streams' (for instance, Military/Industrial; Commercial/Scientific etc). This way, if you place a large part of your 'science budget' into one stream over another, then you might still get some of the main techs, but will tend to miss out on any of the 'branch' techs that belong to the stream you have invested least in.

2) If we accept that you are more likely to get a tech whn you have one or more of its 'prerequisites', then it follows that having a MAIN tech, then you increase the chance of getting any branch techs that come off it. The downside is that you are MORE likely to get the branch techs than more of the Main techs.

3) The third option is that, if you have a % allocation system for your beakers, then it should be possible to allocate beakers to each streams 'sub-path'. So, for instance, you could have 30% of your beakers allocated to military techs, and 20% of your beakers allocated to military 'sub-tech'-for a total of 50% of your beakers allocated to the overall military stream.

Anyway, just some thoughts! Also, DH and Sir_Schwick, could you give a working example of how you see your model working WITH a semi-blind system? Thanks !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

Except that "watering down" is a fuzzy concept at best. Do you make it not grant certain units? Or does it grant a weaker version of the unit? What about governments? And improvements?

Very close to what I mean. In dh's Absolute vs. Consitutional example, obviously Absolute or Constitutional monarchies would not be able to use the other's techs. The economic branch could only build weaker versions of the units. Improvements may also be weaker, or have negatives, etc. Basically the tech is not as useful when it is not on one of your branches. This could go everywhere from being almost the same to not existing at all. Testing would be a big component to this system.

Also, this system would do a lot better if military units could be sold, so militant nations can sell to merchant nations, etc.

Anyway, just some thoughts! Also, DH and Sir_Schwick, could you give a working example of how you see your model working WITH a semi-blind system? Thanks !

Using dh's example, imagine one of the several branches you are currently researching is 'Constitutional Monarchies'. Another might be 'Small Scale Companies(encourages local farmers, autonomous politics, militias)'. Etc. Now you get to choose how much you invest in each branch from your research budget. Of course whenever you hit tech crossroads, you are asked about which direction to take.

 

[dh_epic]

Oda Nobunaga,

One of the keys of this model is that you wouldn't only embrace some exclusive techs, but you'd also embrace some technologies early. Take the constitutional monarchy example. You take that route and get some small democratic reforms to your country, also resulting in more happiness and commerce in your nation. Someone else foregos that for the path with absolute monarchy and a few more powerful military units and improvements. For a while you have the advantage of some of those democratic reforms. But eventually, long after the middle ages, even the absolute monarchy guy collides with Constitutional Monarchy himself (the Industrial Age version).

Take another example. Ancient Greece goes deep into philosophy and discovers the Socratic Method, and then Democracy. Rome foregos this branch to go for some military techs, with an improved version of the Archer and a Military Wonder -- which they use to conquer Greece. Later, in the Industrial Age, Rome finally collides with Democracy ANYWAY, it's just much later than the Greeks. (Note that with the flexibility of this model, Rome and Greece's history could turn out the other way around, too. There's no reason Rome couldn't forego the military techs for democratic techs in the ancient age, too.)

The main question I'd ask myself is if these techs that appear twice would be the exact same tech, or if you'd note that one is a "prototype" somehow. If they'd both be called "Democracy", or if the ancient one would be called "Assembly" with the modern one being "Democracy" proper. "Assembly" would allow the government Early Democracy, whereas discovering actual Democracy would upgrade/replace it with Democracy (proper).

Similarly, would they both be "Constitutional Monarchy", or would the middle ages one be "Constitutional Monarchy", and the industrial age one be called, say, "Constitution"...

Even if they're named something different, it's also safe to say that discovering "Assembly" in the ancient age would speed up your research of "Democracy" in the industrial age. Moreover, if they're entirely the same, then you shouldn't have to research the same tech twice.

And finally, these are merely examples, and by no means am I committed to these technologies, their names, their attributes, or their arrangement. The basic idea is still about choosing between two paths: sacrificing a cool government for a cool unit, or sacrificing a cool Wonder for some commercial improvements, etc.

Aussie, on blind research... something to keep in mind is that the tech tree will branch in some places, but stay similar to Civ 3 in others. In civ 3, you might be exploring 4 different concurrent branches at the same time! The only difference is that in Civ 4, 2 of these branches might be mutually exclusive. You're still exploring 3 branches concurrently, but there is a choice about what you want your third branch to be. I hope that makes sense, and you can fill in the rest. But I can clarify more, if you'd like.

 

[sir_schwick]

Also, this could tie into how to make each culture unique and make culture a more interesting demographic. What you research currently has an affect on the immediate future and somewhat on future research. However what you researched way back when is still part of your cultural heritage. Other cultures that had similair developement will not feel as estranged if ruled by you. This could be one way of determining true cultural clash and spread. The full implicaitons could take up their own thread.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Great idea!
I first thought that there might be some problems with the exclusitivity(?) part - if you pick the militaristic path you gain a unit that lasts some time, while a worker or trade bonus would last the whole game. But since there will be a tech later on that gives the same or a better bonus - that'll be no real problem.

Giving the player more tough choices to consider is always good in these kind of games, and there was way to few interesting ones in civ3:s techtree.

I still want religion in though

 

[Evie]

Hmmm. I can see the point - sort of. Although, to be fair DH, Rome DID research Democracy about at the same time the Greeks did ;-).

HOWEVER, I think that whatever ELSE happens, blind research, if in, should be optional. I know Aussie Lurker wants it, I can see why, but I frankly don't care at all for that concept, and would much rather not have to deal with it - it's one of those "Removing control from players make the game feel less fun" moment to me.

 

[dh_epic]

That's okay, Oda Nobunaga. It's not the specific examples I'm talking about but the overall shape of the tech tree. I'm probably focusing in on narrow details more than I should, anyway. The real differences shouldn't be inspired by Romans versus Greeks, but Arab world versus European World, particularly in the middle ages. Big picture type stuff.

And also, before anyone has any misconceptions, you wouldn't be picking branches that deliberately slow you down. I know some Civs look more "backwards" than others, and some even hit "dead ends". But I'm talking about the differences that can't be merely attributed to speed, and who's ahead/behind. You could pick a European-inspired branch over an Arab-inspired branch in the middle ages, and that wouldn't mean that you fall behind in a dark age.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hey, Oda, I don't support a BLIND research system, I support a 'Semi-Blind' research system. I know some people may not see a difference, but there is a WORLD of difference. In particular, my system allows a player to pursue multiple tech streams at once, in stead of picking techs in linear order. At the same time, though, the player can choose what stream he wants to 'specialise' in, but with less of the certainty involved in a simple beeline strategy. Another positive element of the 'semi-blind' method is that certain in-game factors-such as terrain, resource availability, tech pre-requisites and neighbouring civs can all impact how soon you get some techs over others, meaning that no two research strategies-even those which rely on identical allocations of 'beakers'-will give you the exact same result. Ultimately, it leaves the player with a definite level of control, but also introduces an air of uncertainty which is greatly lacking in the civ series.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

Wait, I'm a bit confused. Is this in any way similar to "blind" research a la SMAC?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It is certainly similar, in principle, to the SMAC system-but my model involves a greater degree of player control, as well as greater influence from in-game effects.
Basically, it would work thusly: Just as in civ1-3, your cities generate a certain # of beakers for the national 'pool'. You allocate a certain % of your total beakers to research 'streams'-such as Industrial Techs, Commercial Techs, Seafaring Techs, Military Techs, Social/Cultural Techs and Health/Infrastructure Techs. Some techs will belong to multiple streams, and each stream corresponds, roughly, to one or more civ traits.
All the techs, as in Civ3, would still be grouped according to era, and would have a specific 'BEAKER' value. As the beakers you have accumulated reach the number of beakers required for a tech, the chance of getting that tech increase-thus leading to a semi-linear accumulation of techs in each stream. Other factors which effect the chance of getting specific techs would be the terrain types within your national boundries, the resources within said boundries, any 'prerequisite' techs you might have-and your civ-traits of course. Tech accumulation would, for the most part, occur in a similar fashion as it always has in the civ series, its just that you can pursue multiple tech streams in my model, and choose which, if any, streams you want to specialise in (military over commercial, industrial over Seafaring etc).
As for this topic, when you get a mainstream 'enabling' tech which has a 'branch' coming off it, you will get the option to allocate resources to the 'branch' research at the time. Of course, this will reduce the amount of resources you have allocated to the main stream, thus slowing your overall RATE of progress in it.
For example, lets say that you have just recieved the Economics tech (main-stream), and this tech has a 'branch' of techs coming off it. When the pop-up appears telling you that you have just discovered Economics, a hypertext button will appear underneath telling you about the 'Branch'. If you click on the hypertext, a second pop-up will appear, asking what % of your commercial research you wish to allocate to this branch (with an OK and Cancel button beneath it). Lets say that you have 50 beakers/turn allocated to Commercial research. Allocating 20% of this to the Economics 'Branch' will commit 10 beakers/turn-leaving 40 beakers/turn for your main-stream commercial research. At any time, you can click on the economics tab in your tech tree screen (science advisor), and decide to cancel current research into the economics branch.
Sorry for being so long-winded, but I hope you can see now where I am coming from.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

While some of those factors seem a bit dynamic(I know this sounds bad), I like the gist of it. Considering most of the rest of Civ is simple integer values and direct relationships, a few parts of that seem a bit dynamic.

However overall that is a very good direction to move research. Also, main techs should give you a little something, but only applied branch research will give you the awesome goodies. That means branches you need to investigate will be investigated. Evolution by needs and wants. Also, some of the techs within branches would requires developmental/resources, but main techs never.