Does >Technology = >Strategy?

[Tholish]

Every added dimension of complexity adds to strategic options. Not only is there strategy involved in the process of selecting research paths, but in the tech trading associated with it and in the synergy of the tech process with many other elements. Without tech issues, economic issues are less pressing and it dominoes from there. So having a tech research process, as in Civ IV as opposed to Colonization, increases strategic complexity. If having tech is more strategic than not having tech, does that mean having more Techs is more strategically involving than having fewer? Generally, however, there is a diminishing return, when adding each additional tech adds less strategic involvement while adding the same amount of...focus diffusion. Adding stuff to the game that has to be accounted for and micromanaged and dealt with and learned diffuses player focus. Some things increase "strategy" a lot per cost of diffusion, while others give relatively poor bang for buck. Tech, like I said is an arithmetic progression superimposed on a logarithmic one. I suspect that as with the reseach claimed to have determiened that 7 religions is optimal, research also determined that 50 to 100 techs is optimal. More importantly, there are only so many things for techs to DO. When whole new spheres are added, such as Civics, Religion, and Corporations these increase the things that tech can enable and improve, and thus increase the optimal LENGTH of the tech tree. Another issue is the breadth. How many approximate rows are there usually, how many techs researchable at any time? Maybe 4 to 10? Has research been done on this? I suspect so. Many things are designed around that sort of range. I believe it may be related to human short term memory having 5 to 9 chunks available. All kinds of menus are designed around this. Anything outside that range too much is more than we can hold in our mind all at once, so we have to take it in bites like we would if we had to scroll down to see additional rows of techs.

 

[Camikaze]

But I don't think the gradient of the logarithmic curve has yet dipped below 1, meaning that, at the moment, each added tech would improve the game. And adding completely new and separate paths can would, IMO, only add to the utility of technology, by increasing the breadth of the tech tree, and hence increasing the need for, and benefit of, specialisation, and therefore causing the range of strategy in game to become wider.

 

[rysmiel]

Do you always win on Deity?

Complicated != difficult.

Even a game as simple as Civ 2 can be impossible to beat if you just jack up the AI bonuses high enough. The objective here is fun.

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

Not necessarily. Whatever gives us a reasonable number of techs at the end of the day; if we're not going to impose a minimum time per tech acquired, for a reasonably long game I would say four or five hundred techs should be enouhg, which does not need that level of discrimination at all.

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.

I think everybody thinks more or less the same about their favoured notions of modification, fwiw. (Except for the people who want perfect simulations of real history, where "every game is unique" and "fun" don't seem to go together.)

 

[rysmiel]

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

I'm not a "he".

 

[rysmiel]

Every added dimension of complexity adds to strategic options. Not only is there strategy involved in the process of selecting research paths, but in the tech trading associated with it and in the synergy of the tech process with many other elements. Without tech issues, economic issues are less pressing and it dominoes from there. So having a tech research process, as in Civ IV as opposed to Colonization, increases strategic complexity. If having tech is more strategic than not having tech, does that mean having more Techs is more strategically involving than having fewer? Generally, however, there is a diminishing return, when adding each additional tech adds less strategic involvement while adding the same amount of...focus diffusion.

This very much depends on how the techs are balanced and how ages progress.

There is a kind of inherent naive succession of "ages" right back in Civ 1. There is a phase of the game where you have phalanxes, and defense has a pretty major advantage; there is then a phase where you have catapults, where attack has a major advantage; that lasts until musketeers, where defense takes a lead again, and then attack does not really regain the advantage until one has tanks. That's a very simple example, but it illustrates that the shape and nature of the game can change temporally over the course of an individual game. How much this is the case in other Civ games, and how, is arguable, depending a lot on your strategy, but there are any number of articles on this site about strategies that involve thinking of games in terms of strategic prorities that change over time.

I think a well-designed tech tree with things sensibly split and balanced in gameplay terms by Ages could avoid the focus diminution issue by providing a certain amount more breadth than there is now - in the direction of different ways to win that I was arguing a few posts back - and also a large expansion of depth, such that ancient, classical, medieval, renaissance, Industrial Revolution, early twentieth century, late twentieth century, and contemporary stages of the game had distinctly different feels, balances, and optimum strategies to them,

 

[Camikaze]

I'm not a "he".

Wow. Sorry. I just assume everyone here is a 'he'. Guess it has to backfire sometimes.

Is it safe to assume you're a 'she'?

 

[exhile]

Is it safe to assume you're a 'she'?

How about "IT".

 

[Naokaukodem]

Complicated != difficult.

Sure, it's a different word, but the first CAN lead to the second, still, which is the case with Civ4.

Not necessarily. Whatever gives us a reasonable number of techs at the end of the day; if we're not going to impose a minimum time per tech acquired, for a reasonably long game I would say four or five hundred techs should be enouhg, which does not need that level of discrimination at all.

I still think that it may be impossible to play if we took a wrong path. On the contrary, it may be too easy if the AIs take other paths than military one. I still think that military and non military techs are intimately linked, and that a discovering in one area should open a range of new possibilities, be it techs or not.

I think everybody thinks more or less the same about their favoured notions of modification, fwiw. (Except for the people who want perfect simulations of real history, where "every game is unique" and "fun" don't seem to go together.)

Most notions of modifications over here are "more of this, more of that" (example: more civs to choose from, more uniques), or "include this or that civ" (Israël not to name it), or completely new and incomplete models that would totally change the game into another (i think about insane reads we had a few time ago). IMHO, my ideas would not change completely the way civs are managed, but would add some tweaks based on play feelings, and inspired by reality, and not the contrary.

If I propose a gameplay feature where all civ are differenciated in some eras, that's because I think it can be usefull in a system of rebellions. Indeed, if some parts of one big civ is differenciated from the core, it could rebel. It could also simulate a time of colonization, with stronger civs invading most of the weaker ones. What i try to propose as ideas are some models that would allow a range of phenomenons that are realistic AND integrated in a bigger vision of a different gameplay. That is IMHO the way Civ should be improved, not just "more of this thing or that one".

If i militate for a greater number of civs on the map from the start, that is also for the sake of rebellions and civ merging. If we have more civs on the map, more merging opportunities would be offered to the player. On the contrary, once those cultures absorbed, they could trigger some problems if they are not enough efficiently assimilated, and rebel.

If I want a culture that overrides the limits of Civ3 and Civ4 culture, spreading along river, plains, roads, railroads and planes, to reach the other continents, this is to represent that the culture of an empire can be borrowed, like the Greek culture of the Eastern Roman Empire; to add some taste to the cultural victory; and last but not least to allow more rebellions based on culture in foreign countries. This one may not be totally realistic, but would add flavor to my rebellion system.

All my systems tend to be more realistic, so that we feel more to rule a true civ, but would also be necessary for a rebellion system.

Ultimately, what I wish I have in a Civ game, is countries that can greatly change over the course of the time. Not only it would make each game unique, but incomparatively more realist and yes, more challenging also.

 

[rysmiel]

How about "IT".

Singular "they" was good enough for Chaucer and Shakespeare, so I'm OK with it.

 

[rysmiel]

I still think that it may be impossible to play if we took a wrong path. On the contrary, it may be too easy if the AIs take other paths than military one.

Only if conquest by military continues a stronger victory path than any other.

If I propose a gameplay feature where all civ are differenciated in some eras, that's because I think it can be usefull in a system of rebellions. Indeed, if some parts of one big civ is differenciated from the core, it could rebel.

I have yet to see a model for this that actually improves on unhappy people, cities in civil disorder, and occasional revolutions, as implemented in Civ 1-3; secession of a bunch of unhappy cities together would be an add-on to that but not a replacement for it.

If i militate for a greater number of civs on the map from the start, that is also for the sake of rebellions and civ merging. If we have more civs on the map, more merging opportunities would be offered to the player. On the contrary, once those cultures absorbed, they could trigger some problems if they are not enough efficiently assimilated, and rebel.

Ethnic origin as modelled in Civ 3 does fine.

Ultimately, what I wish I have in a Civ game, is countries that can greatly change over the course of the time. Not only it would make each game unique, but incomparatively more realist and yes, more challenging also.

I can entirely agree with that goal, at least.

 

[exhile]

Singular "they" was good enough for Chaucer and Shakespeare, so I'm OK with it.

So you are not a "he" or "she" but prefer to be called, "they" instead of "it". Am I getting this right?

 

[Naokaukodem]

Only if conquest by military continues a stronger victory path than any other.

The thing is, every civilization is more or less tensed to military domination/defense. Those that were not were crushed or absorbed. (even those that were) So yes, it would be possible to reach another victory from military one, but it would be predictable to lose (militaristicly).

I have yet to see a model for this that actually improves on unhappy people, cities in civil disorder, and occasional revolutions, as implemented in Civ 1-3; secession of a bunch of unhappy cities together would be an add-on to that but not a replacement for it.

Civil disorder have been removed from Civ4, and that's good. It simply makes the game more pleasant to play: no need to reload the game if a city falls into civil disorder. I am against rebellions based on unhappy people, because this is too much controllable by the player: avoiding unhappy faces is easy but not handy, what would result in constant reloadings.

Ethnic origin as modelled in Civ 3 does fine

I don't remember that any ethnic differencies was provocating rebellions in Civ3. Ethnicity have nothing to do with rebellions, except probably in rare cases. It is much more a problem of culture/religion, even if those two last may be linked with the first. Ethnicity was a pure anecdotic display, such as the city screen. More, ethnicities are more often replaced by new ones at the favor of mixity, rather than dominated or dominating. There may be some exceptions in the real world, such as the nowadays arab countries, but the factors involved in such elements are far too complicated for being displayed realistically in a game like Civ.

 

[rysmiel]

The thing is, every civilization is more or less tensed to military domination/defense. Those that were not were crushed or absorbed. (even those that were) So yes, it would be possible to reach another victory from military one, but it would be predictable to lose (militaristicly).

Are you talking about realism or gameplay here ?

It simply makes the game more pleasant to play: no need to reload the game if a city falls into civil disorder. I am against rebellions based on unhappy people, because this is too much controllable by the player: avoiding unhappy faces is easy but not handy, what would result in constant reloadings.

Why would you relaod the game over civil disorder ? I think this is controllable at exactly the level one would want the possibility of revolutions to be.

I don't remember that any ethnic differencies was provocating rebellions in Civ3.

The ethnicity of citizens in cities of your does make a difference if you are at war with their originating civilisation, though. That happiness effect makes it very hard to keep large just-conquered cities from civil disorder, which is a result that works for me.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Are you talking about realism or gameplay here ?

Both.

Why would you relaod the game over civil disorder ? I think this is controllable at exactly the level one would want the possibility of revolutions to be.

Because you can easily reload the game and activate the "no growth" option, to avoid unhappy faces.

By the way, I think that a kind of "no growth if it creates an unhappy face" option should be activated by default. It happens more often in my games that i dont' want growth anymore due to ressource lacking, than allowing unhappy faces in forecast of a future governement change (heredetary rules). But as every player do not play the same, I think the game should allow us to define the default configuration for every city.

The ethnicity of citizens in cities of your does make a difference if you are at war with their originating civilisation, though. That happiness effect makes it very hard to keep large just-conquered cities from civil disorder, which is a result that works for me.

But it does not determine rebellions, and it shoudn't. For that, I think that a culture that is managed more or less like Civ4 religions (more finely though) would do the trick. Hence more civilizations on start, with their own cultures.

 

[rysmiel]

Because you can easily reload the game and activate the "no growth" option, to avoid unhappy faces.

It seems to me that if you can actually do well enough to win the game without your cities growing something is wrong somewhere.

By the way, I think that a kind of "no growth if it creates an unhappy face" option should be activated by default. It happens more often in my games that i dont' want growth anymore due to ressource lacking, than allowing unhappy faces in forecast of a future governement change (heredetary rules).

I don't want that option in the game at all; it seems almost as much of missing the point as a "no diplomacy" or "no war managment" switch where the computer does those for you.

 

[Naokaukodem]

It seems to me that if you can actually do well enough to win the game without your cities growing something is wrong somewhere.

Huh? No pun intended, but what are you talking about? It happens very often in my games to have unhappy faces or that i have to switch the "no growth" option on. I still didn't win an Emperor game though.

I don't want that option in the game at all; it seems almost as much of missing the point as a "no diplomacy" or "no war managment" switch where the computer does those for you.

It still exists. In some cases, the advisor will manage your city so there is no growth, even if you didn't touch the "no growth" option or any worker in the squares. That happens more when you are building wonders, so that the maximum amount of hammers in allocated without creating useless growth.

What i say, if any rebellion to be focused on unhappy face, is that such a feature for all builds would be necessary. I personnally find no satisfaction to have to switch growth off in every city. If it can be done automatically, that it to be done automatically. If i still want unhappy faces growth, I still can use a switch. If my first thought is to let all cities grow unhappy faces, i can tweak it in the options.

 

[rysmiel]

It still exists. In some cases, the advisor will manage your city so there is no growth, even if you didn't touch the "no growth" option or any worker in the squares. That happens more when you are building wonders, so that the maximum amount of hammers in allocated without creating useless growth.

Dude, you let the advisor manage your cities ? How does that count as actually playing the game ?

What i say, if any rebellion to be focused on unhappy face, is that such a feature for all builds would be necessary. I personnally find no satisfaction to have to switch growth off in every city. If it can be done automatically, that it to be done automatically.

It';s not about switching off growth in every city; it's about managing every city, every turn (or at least, every time it has a state change, like changing size or getting a new improvement) to do the absolute best it can. And keeping up with happiness improvements so that unhappy faces are not a long-term problem.

 

[Tholish]

Ultimately, what I wish I have in a Civ game, is countries that can greatly change over the course of the time. Not only it would make each game unique, but incomparatively more realist and yes, more challenging also.

In our wishes we must be elegant. One must recognize that developer time and effort is finite and how hard it is. What can be done that improves the approximation of simulation relatively simply? I don't need perfect simulation of reality--approximations are understandable like a fuzzy photo with only so much resolution. But actual contradictions of reality jar, like false colors or overexposure.

How can the impact of trade on cultural influence be modelled simply, preferably by piggybacking another system or only creating new systems that lend themselves to being further piggybacked for other as yet unanticipated purposes?

How about if tech discovery produced not a technology but a discoverer, a unit like a great person? This unit could be used to build a school that builds other units called scholars, who can also build schools or buildings and units and such that require the tech. So civs don't have techs, cities do, and because they have people that know them because they went there on a road or a ship. Later, knowledge will be able to spread by printed books or internet.

And on top of that a bit of Sim City like private enterprise, depending on civic. If you allow a certain amount of freedom, your people will build many biuldings for you at a discount, but will likewise do other things independently--like sell products internationally that can be reverse engineered.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Dude, you let the advisor manage your cities ? How does that count as actually playing the game ?

It';s not about switching off growth in every city; it's about managing every city, every turn (or at least, every time it has a state change, like changing size or getting a new improvement) to do the absolute best it can. And keeping up with happiness improvements so that unhappy faces are not a long-term problem.

I let the advisor manage my cities when I feel he is ok. Most of the time, that is. I can't be arsed to check every of my cities every turn. Anyway, if i have more than 5 cities, i do not remember how many pop points each of them had the previous turn so if they grew I can't know. Unless me to check every city every turn, what I can't really be arsed. If it would come to change in the future, I wish there is an option for a range of events like "one of my city saw his pop change", or "the [X] civ army has overpass your!" Additionnally, you can't do that in multiplayer, and i tend to play more multiplayer games than single player ones.

 

[Naokaukodem]

In our wishes we must be elegant. One must recognize that developer time and effort is finite and how hard it is. What can be done that improves the approximation of simulation relatively simply? I don't need perfect simulation of reality--approximations are understandable like a fuzzy photo with only so much resolution. But actual contradictions of reality jar, like false colors or overexposure.

How can the impact of trade on cultural influence be modelled simply, preferably by piggybacking another system or only creating new systems that lend themselves to being further piggybacked for other as yet unanticipated purposes?

I am confident into the developpers' talent. I won't propose any mathematical formula, as i am way too much ignorant about them. On the top of that, I think that it is easier to emit a simple formula, but way more difficult to understand this simple formula. Even ideas of my own, which are simple, have some difficulty to be understood by others, so since we are in a forum I feel it is better to make the things understandable by the majority.

About the impact of trade on cultural influence, I think it is pretty simple. Let's start on the point that culture expansion have no limit, either than natural obstacles and spead of communications. From this point of view, it is easy to add cultures in a city/land on the basis of Civ4 inter-city trade, Civ civilization trades (the one you get when you meet the leaders), and maybe also a third factor like tile trading. (cottages, farms, mines, etc...) If this last one works like inter-city trade, that may however take too much computer ressource. Maybe centralize them in a national pool to be distributed from the capitals through communication routes. (and building a land improvement out of a zone of control would be usefull)

How about if tech discovery produced not a technology but a discoverer, a unit like a great person? This unit could be used to build a school that builds other units called scholars, who can also build schools or buildings and units and such that require the tech. So civs don't have techs, cities do, and because they have people that know them because they went there on a road or a ship. Later, knowledge will be able to spread by printed books or internet.

So you would get cities with archery and some without? Seems odd. I think that techs should expand more naturally, and confine them to only cities would make the things worst. However, i think i know where you want to go with such an idea. There are a lot of interesting possibilities to get out of coins.
Myself, i suggested earlier the possibility to manage techs a brand new way: from contacts and links. The coins where dedicated to civic improvements and military, so that an island civ could work on civics and make their cities efficiency whole lot better (and tech also, as there was a part of coins in the research rate), at the expense of military power. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184244
Also there are interesting things to do with state-cities. Maybe city-states should be the civic by default at the start of the game?

And on top of that a bit of Sim City like private enterprise, depending on civic. If you allow a certain amount of freedom, your people will build many biuldings for you at a discount, but will likewise do other things independently--like sell products internationally that can be reverse engineered.

It could be interesting to have an internal economy.