Does >Technology = >Strategy?

[rysmiel]

Although the defection-in-war-due-to-culture thing doesn't seem all that plausible.

I'm more interested in "balanced game mechanic" than "plausible" any day of the week with a Y in it.

 

[rysmiel]

supply units, a weaker defeats a stronger force by raiding the supply units of the invader.

I don't like that one because it makes the game more tactical in scale and less grand strategy,

 

[Naokaukodem]

I disagree. I don't think there are enough technologies in Civ4 by a factor of 4 or 5; what's missing, really, is a way of balancing tech paths so that there are different paths through the tech tree which are beneficial in different ways. Different civs having different specific technologies is a simple wrong solution to this.

For ecample, imagine there's one path down which you can get to horseback riding early. Someone else can get to catapults early, but that's of limited use if the stack of catapults they drag to your city can be trivially taken out by your horsemen; and if they want defensive units good enough to protect the catapults, by the time they get that and catapults, you'll have got to heavy horsemen or knights or some other direction that helps you defend better again. Or if bribery comes back into the game you could have built lots of marketplaces and bazaars and what not and be enough richer than the invader to bribe every barbarian on the continet to come defend you, or bribe the enemy's defensive units to trash the catapults for you. Or if my notion aboiut cultural conversions were implemented, you could go in a diffferent direction again and make your culture so goshdarn awesome that the catapults sitting outside your walls would go "Hey, we really should be working for these guys" and defect to your side.

I don't want mechanisms like supply chains that are dealing with the problem of SoD by making SoDs harder; I want genuinely different strategies that allow you to overcome SoDs by ways other than confronting their strengths.

Me neither, I don't want supply chain, the way it is told in this topic at least.

As your idea, it seems that techs with horses are far more advantageous than the regular techs, cheaper and faster to reach. That could be done through limited tech tree, just as the one in civ4, but would be unbalanced. And you didn't proove me why so numerous techs would be so cool.

 

[Xellos-_^]

I don't like that one because it makes the game more tactical in scale and less grand strategy,

And the current Grand Strategy in the"

Ancient Era is: Built the biggest SoD
Middle Age is: Built the Biggest SoD
Modern Era: Built the biggest SoD
Future Era: Built the biggest SoD

so what is wrong with introduction of tactics into the game when currently it is the same thing over and over again.

 

[rysmiel]

As your idea, it seems that techs with horses are far more advantageous than the regular techs, cheaper and faster to reach.

No, they're not; you are misreading my example. What I am proposing is that horses are one path, heavy defenders are another, catapults another, wealth and bribery another, culture conversion yet another, and that each of these is a different way to win. Awesome culture could convert horses as easily as catapults; money could bribe horses as easily as catapults.

 

[rysmiel]

And the current Grand Strategy in the"

Ancient Era is: Built the biggest SoD
Middle Age is: Built the Biggest SoD
Modern Era: Built the biggest SoD
Future Era: Built the biggest SoD

so what is wrong with introduction of tactics into the game when currently it is the same thing over and over again.

What is wrong with the introduction of tactics is that if I wanted to play a tactical game rather than a strategy/logistics game I would go elsewhere. I agree the strategy is lacking, so why not fix the strategy rather than abandon it in favour of a tactical game ?

Civ 4 already has way too much tactical-level stuff in. Individual unit promotions, for example.

 

[Naokaukodem]

No, they're not; you are misreading my example. What I am proposing is that horses are one path, heavy defenders are another, catapults another, wealth and bribery another, culture conversion yet another, and that each of these is a different way to win. Awesome culture could convert horses as easily as catapults; money could bribe horses as easily as catapults.

So different civs would end up with different technologies, what i pointed out in my first answer.

Different civs having different specific technologies is a simple wrong solution to this.

I was not meaning each civ has its tech path, but the end result of such a tech tree. It could work for a game like Alpha Centauri, but would not be very realistic in a game like civ, because techs are intrinsically linked between each others in reality: many war-turned techs can find an application in civil area for example. More, some techs are useless without anothers, like steam power (discovered in antiquity) useless before a good technologic advancement. Plus, in reality like in Civ, civs tend to share techs, which makes them pretty similar. And without tech sharing, i guess it is prooved than the civilizations face a similar tech tree, as the iroquois had arrows and bows just like zulus.

However, a thing that i always wanted to see in Civ was golden ages. I mean, true golden ages, like the Greek one in antiquity. Golden ages that could completely reverse the strategy in a given area. This could be emulated by, indeed, a consequent number of techs that would be randomly accessible. I mean, what in antiquity prevented Greeks to invent the steam machine? Maybe less technology advancement than expected. I could be wrong, but i would love to see alternate universes created by the magic of random access to technologies and true real time "engine".

The human being is much more efficient in copying than in creating new things, and i always wondered "what if a genius to born in X times or X times". That is the same interrogation that makes me wonder "why don't we discover space travel nowadays when it seems that we have just been in a 200 years golden age"?

For this, a very intelligent tech tree should be designed, with premonitions on the true ways tech advancement takes. I mean, a tech could have been discovered 1000 years before and stop its evolution until another guy suddenly got interested by or reinvented it, 1000 years after. Not sure if a greater number of techs would be necessary though.

 

[CivMyWay]

I'm no philosopher, but isnt strategy (long term) just an aggregation of tactics (now), which lead to the end goal?

Another question: It seems people don't like a complex supply chain - what if a unit was considered 'supplied' as long as they were within 1 tile of a road network which linked back to allied territory?

This is ultimately harder to defend than supply wagons (more numerous attack points) so you could make it so the road network was considered intact unless a gap of 2 tiles existed. (This means an attacker must at least attack two consecutive road tiles... which is at least a little harder than 1).

Anyway, that's really not what this topic was about...

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm no philosopher, but isnt strategy (long term) just an aggregation of tactics (now), which lead to the end goal?

Dictionnaries usually do not make the difference between tactic or strategy. And if you take the large definition of them, I agree with them. On this forum, tactic is meant local moves in a battle, and strategy grand scale logistic. But if you take their common senses, tactic could mean grand scale logistic, because a tactic is an ensemble of moves towards a given goal, and strategy could mean local moves in a battle, beacause a tactic can be an ensemble of moves towards a given goal, too.

 

[rysmiel]

So different civs would end up with different technologies, what i pointed out in my first answer.

I was not meaning each civ has its tech path, but the end result of such a tech tree.

OK, I misread you. What you are actually saying is something I agree would happen, but it's also the objective I am aiming for in the first place; very different large-scale gameplay and development strategies allowing you to win in different ways.

It could work for a game like Alpha Centauri, but would not be very realistic in a game like civ, because techs are intrinsically linked between each others in reality

I don't believe that this is actually the case near so much as the current Civ tech-tree model assumes.

And without tech sharing, i guess it is prooved than the civilizations face a similar tech tree, as the iroquois had arrows and bows just like zulus.

I'll grant you that for the equivalent of the first six or eight techs, but compare medieval China to the mesoamerican empires of the same period and I think they would be, in Civ terms, quite different.

However, a thing that i always wanted to see in Civ was golden ages. I mean, true golden ages, like the Greek one in antiquity. Golden ages that could completely reverse the strategy in a given area. This could be emulated by, indeed, a consequent number of techs that would be randomly accessible.

Ick. I like golden ages speeding up your research enough to get a pile of extra techs for the same time, but random acquisition, not for me, not at all.

 

[Naokaukodem]

OK, I misread you. What you are actually saying is something I agree would happen, but it's also the objective I am aiming for in the first place; very different large-scale gameplay and development strategies allowing you to win in different ways.

It seems appealing in theory, but in practice, it could be very contraignant. Imagine you searched all the cultural techs and finally found out that a civ beat you in that domain and aim for a cultural win. you will have to search a whole new set of techs in order to win differently, with all the late it includes.

I don't believe that this is actually the case near so much as the current Civ tech-tree model assumes.

It is not rare in Civ4 that a single tech provides several improvements.

I'll grant you that for the equivalent of the first six or eight techs, but compare medieval China to the mesoamerican empires of the same period and I think they would be, in Civ terms, quite different.

This may be because mesoamerican empires stagnated. Hence my suggestion about tech advancment to be managed differently, in this suggestion: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184244

Ick. I like golden ages speeding up your research enough to get a pile of extra techs for the same time, but random acquisition, not for me, not at all.

By random acquisition I mean secret tech shorcuts in order to propose an alternate universe based on a premonition of the real deep tech path, not the superficial appearing one. This way, a civ could discover gunpowder 1000 years before it actually been discovered in reality, and use it. That could explain also the difference of power of the mesoamerican civs compared to european ones. That could model the military supremacy of some civs over others like the Roman civilization, the greek, the mongols, the persian, the carthagenian.

 

[rysmiel]

It seems appealing in theory, but in practice, it could be very contraignant. Imagine you searched all the cultural techs and finally found out that a civ beat you in that domain and aim for a cultural win. you will have to search a whole new set of techs in order to win differently, with all the late it includes

That does dedpend on how easy it is to switch one's focus on techs between Ages. But I would hope that you going for a cultural victory and having to compete with another civilisationalso going for a cultural victiry and one trying for an economic victory and one trying to take over the world would make for a more fun and challenging game in every respect.

It is not rare in Civ4 that a single tech provides several improvements.

I know; I am saying I think this is a problem.

By random acquisition I mean secret tech shorcuts in order to propose an alternate universe based on a premonition of the real deep tech path, not the superficial appearing one.

Um, yuck. That is repellent to me, not least for the anthropocentrism of thinking we know what the real tech paths are; history has not actually finished yet.

 

[Naokaukodem]

That does dedpend on how easy it is to switch one's focus on techs between Ages. But I would hope that you going for a cultural victory and having to compete with another civilisationalso going for a cultural victiry and one trying for an economic victory and one trying to take over the world would make for a more fun and challenging game in every respect.

Well, according to your very idea, it would be difficult.

I know; I am saying I think this is a problem.

This is realistic.

Um, yuck. That is repellent to me, not least for the anthropocentrism of thinking we know what the real tech paths are; history has not actually finished yet.

It would only be guesses, but very interesting guesses. It kind of remember me the efforts of some modern scientists trying to replicate the middle-age siege weapons. (see at TV) At least, it would allow a great number of potential alternate universes in each game, and even simulate what could be an alien civ.

 

[Camikaze]

I can see what you are getting at, but it wouldn't be very enjoyable if you, for example, had no control over an enemy civ gaining gunpowder in the Classical Era. So not only would it damage game balance, but also enjoyability, if you weren't the one controlling what's happening. This is probably the case, to a degree, with any random element in the game; it will come with a level of frustration. The difference between this and random events is that this could be hugely game-breaking.

 

[Naokaukodem]

You could always trade gunpowder, or get it freely. (again, see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184244 )

If only one civ has a groundbreaking tech, it may affect all the other civs. The tech tree would be kind of updated.

 

[rysmiel]

Well, according to your very idea, it would be difficult.

Competing with civs who genuinely go for different paths to victory ? Yes, it would. That's the point. It's adding to the levels of challenge in the game at a different level from just giving the AI bonuses.

(in re single tech providing several improvements in Civ 4)

This is realistic.

No, it's not. It's using a definition of "tech" that I think needs to be broken down into more distinct subtechs, generally, each of which should have fewer improvements attached to it; I am inclined to favour most techs having only one improvement/unit/wonder attached.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Competing with civs who genuinely go for different paths to victory ? Yes, it would. That's the point. It's adding to the levels of challenge in the game at a different level from just giving the AI bonuses.

I think Civ4 is already enough difficult as it is.

No, it's not. It's using a definition of "tech" that I think needs to be broken down into more distinct subtechs, generally, each of which should have fewer improvements attached to it; I am inclined to favour most techs having only one improvement/unit/wonder attached.

Yes, it is. A single science discovery in Science actually have several applications.

I know what you mean by "the tech tree is not all scientific", but it is a convenient way to represent all the aspects of History. Code of Law or Meditation are not really technologies, more social advancements, that IMO should have a lot more effects that the ones we see in Civ4. It should have a lot of new things in 1 tech. Unless you want different "tech" trees, what would be worse than a single in regard of the real randomness of the techs/social/religious advancements.

The nowadays tech tree represents pretty well what is a civilization, by definition. It does not go in the way of differenciation. Differentiation is more the job of culture IMO. You talk earlier about the difference of mesoamerican civs with chinese civs. I think it is more a question of culture than technology.

Civilizations is more about defining what they have in common than in what they differ. And in History, civilizations tend to look like the same because of communications. IMHO, it would be much more intresting to guess the real tech paths, in order to make each game unique, than trying to make the civs differents in technology. In the last, in Civ, they would still tend to be the same because of tech sharing. It would be a wasted effort to try them to look different.

Another thing i would like to be represented in the game would be the differenciation opposed to the speed of communications. In prehistory, the tech advancement was very slow, even a lot more slower than communications, so the tech advancement had the time to circumnavigate the globe, and every "civilization" was the same. At a certain time, tech advancement began to speed up, and exceded the communication speed. This was the time of differenciation. The advancement hadn't the time to circumnavigate the globe so than another tech was discovered. But after this, communications started to speed up, to reach a point that it surpassed the tech advancement. Again, civilizations of all the world lost their differenciation.

In what i describe above, you can see that the differenciation was only a part of History. Hence my idea of automatic tech trade that I pointed out in my previous posts.

 

[rysmiel]

I think Civ4 is already enough difficult as it is.

I still hold the position that Civ 4 is about 66% as complicated as the ideal Civ would be.

Yes, it is. A single science discovery in Science actually have several applications.

Each application requires independent development, though; I think this is a reasonable argument for each application being an independent tech in Civ terms.

In what i describe above, you can see that the differenciation was only a part of History. Hence my idea of automatic tech trade that I pointed out in my previous posts.

To my mind, this is yet another notion of increased realism that would harm gameplay.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I still hold the position that Civ 4 is about 66% as complicated as the ideal Civ would be.

Do you always win on Deity?

Each application requires independent development, though; I think this is a reasonable argument for each application being an independent tech in Civ terms.

So you want a tech for each domain of mathematics, for each site of the internet and so on?

To my mind, this is yet another notion of increased realism that would harm gameplay.

I think that it would deserve a certain idea of an evolved Civ that is mine. That goes with all goody huts being replaced by civs, and rebellions, and culture spreading, and tech shorcuts by golden ages or great persons. This is an ensemble of things that make Civ a new and fun game, a meta game where each game is unique and fun.

 

[Camikaze]

Do you always win on Deity?

I think he means more the number of aspects in the game, not the difficulty of the individual existing aspects.