I do think the technology tree deserves some changes...

[Leyrann]

For one, you can research Rocketry witout having researched Mining. Or Nanotechnology without Sailing.

Moderator Action: Thread title fixed -- Browd (thanks)

 

[dunkleosteus]

Yeah, there are a lot of things that should be changed about the tech tree. How you do it depends on what you're after. One approach might be to fix as many inaccuracies as possible (like you mentioned, you shouldn't be able to skip mining to get to rocketry) and then see where that got you. The other approach would be a purely game-play approach where you just made it so that pretty much every tech in each era was required.

I'll start with the historical approach. There are some immediate issues where there are things unlocked by techs that SHOULD require other techs but don't. The TECH itself doesn't require the other tech, but the things that are unlocked by the tech are actually the combined application of multiple technologies. An easy example of this is the Heavy Chariot. You need neither animal husbandry or horses to build chariots. This is clearly incorrect. Again, there are two approaches: introduce a new system where certain units or buildings have multiple tech requirements instead of a single one, or make the tech that unlocks them require the other tech.


Anyway, if we're not adding or removing techs then here are some examples of techs that need more requirements:
Bronze working should require pottery. Early metal working was done in simple pottery kilns. It's how we discovered that heating up certain minerals was a good idea.
Masonry should require pottery. Masonry is a bit broad, and could possibly be just working with cut stone, but often it meant brickwork, and bricks are made of fired clay.
Engineering should require at least bronze working. Proper engineering without metal tools of any form is a difficult task indeed.
Mathematics should require Celestial Navigation. This is a little looser: it's not like this is a strict requirement, but a working ability to navigate with the stars gives you a very solid basis in mathematics, including trigonometry and spatial relationships. Many ancient cultures developed mathematical principles to help explain the movement of the stars and the timing of the seasons.

I'm also still not entirely sure what the difference between engineering, construction and masonry is supposed to be. Construction almost seems like a midpoint between the two.

Military Tactics is still a ridiculous technology. Mathematics? What bearing does that have? That sounds much more like a civic than a tech.

Actually, there are way too many problems with the tech tree to address them all.

 

[Siptah]

Military Tactics is still a ridiculous technology. Mathematics? What bearing does that have? That sounds much more like a civic than a tech.

No those are not civics, but neither techs. Those are sciences.
It's logical that you need science to research them. Unlike 90% of the other techs that you shouldn't need science for research.
Civ keeps mixing techs and science since the first civ and while I always hoped it would change at some point, I don't think it will split them ever.
I had some hope with eurekas that this would change and we get some technologies and some sciences that require different things to unlock. But no. At least now you do things that actually lead to technology, unlike before without the eurekas where you only got science (to unlock hunting or the wheel, really?). Maybe it is best to picture the science from population as experience and not science and the science from campuses as real science for immersion...
That science and technology are intertwined is a relatively new thing in history (it happened rarely in smaller regions for short time frames, like hellenistic Alexandria). Many people I encountered have a problem understanding such topics since they are not used to 'historical thinking' or cultural history in general (not that I claim that you wouldn't).

 

[dunkleosteus]

Military Tactics is not a science. It's a concept or a technique. A science can be rigourously tested and checked with experimentation. At the stage in history that Military tactics is researched, it was not a science. (In fact I'm not sure if there were science at that point). Technologies in Civ are usually inventions or methods that allow you to modify one thing into another. Stirrups, gunpowder, and square rigging are examples of inventions. Bronze working, masonry, and mining are examples of methods, where they transform ore into metal, stones into bricks and the earth into ore respectively.

Military tactics is not either of those things. It does not add any new concepts. It does not represent a new thing that can be used. It is a specific way to conduct military battles. Consider that there are civics called Defensive Tactics, and Military Training. Those two concepts are incredibly closely related to Military Tactics and that's what I was getting at.

 

[Siptah]

There are some sciences in the civics tree as well (not that I would call Military Training one). And for sure, defensive tactics is largely a part of military tactics, which I see as a 19th century science that surely has strong roots in classical antiquity (with very small branches going even further back). But it seems that the problem here is that we two won't agree what a science is.

 

[Leyrann]

What I think, is that the tech and civic tree first and foremost need more crosslinks. Not like the bottlenecks that some mods use, where you HAVE to research a certain tech to move to the next era, and that tech requires all techs from the past era, but just a bit more intertwined. Basically, to get the top tech in an era, you have to have the bottom techs two eras earlier and then have a more-or-less diagonal line between them with the techs you have to research. Same for civics.

That said, my personal favorite tech tree is the one from Civ4; some units, buildings etc require multiple technologies, and due to the nature of the tree it is possible to have requirement technologies from the other side of the tech tree, and not everything has to have a line between it (the requirement of having lines between techs in 5 and 6 automatically reduced the possible dependancies because of this). On top of that, costs are dependent on every technology, not per column. A big tech like Iron Working (a tech that could mean you entered the classical era) was a lot more expensive than a smaller tech like Alphabet (which also was a tech that might make you enter the classical era). Of course, Iron Working revealed Iron and allowed you to build Swordsmen, who beat everything but Axemen and were at that point incredibly strong against cities. Alphabet, meanwhile only gave technology trading and the spy system.

On top of that - we have the eureka system now. And it's not even close to as good as it could be. In extreme cases, you could even limit technological and cultural advancement to eureka-related systems, though I can see why that might not make for a good game. What you could do, however, is that you could "split" Eureka's: Every barbarian you kill gives you 20% towards Bronze Working. Every civilization you meet gives you 40% towards Writing. Every tile you improve gives you 15% towards Craftmanship. Every city state you meet gives you 25% towards Political Philosophy. Every mountain you discover gives you 4% towards Astrology, every natural wonder you discover gives you 40% towards Astrology. And so on. Every unique district you build gives you 25% towards Mathematics. Every kill with a slinger gives you 40% towards Archery. The possibilities are endless. Of course, you would then have to adjust science and culture rates across the board, but they're in need of that anyways (still).

 

[Siptah]

With regard to advancing in the tech and civic tree, I think eras could be made more important and feel different.
So how about this suggestion, that would also make it more beneficial to be strong in both culture and science (at cost of flexibility):

To start researching a civic or tech from the next era, you need to have 8 civics/techs of the current era unlocked. So if you are in Industrial era tech-wise and you have neglected culture where you are still in renaissance, you have to research 8 industrial science era to get to research a tech from modern era. If you are in industrial era in the civic tree as well, you can for example unlock 4 civics and 4 techs until you are allowed to advance. It would make the two trees more depending on each other without restricting things too much (like needing certain civics for certain techs) and eras would probably feel more like a real era that you go through instead of just going through some paths of the tech tree.

@Leyrann: I wholeheartedly support your last paragraph. This is ~ how I pictured it when I first read about the system. It would be good to leave some untouched that you need to fulfill a certain amount to get anything, like the 6 farms for Feudalism. But why do I need to build two forts? Can't I get 20% boost for each fort that I build? I guess there should be a cap though, otherwise you may be able to complete some very advanced techs by exploiting certain mechanics and get it way too fast. For example, if get 20% boost for apprenticeship with each mine I build, I could rush two builders very early and spam 5 mines to unlock it. Hard requirements for techs/civics that need to be researched earlier could prevent that. Or above mentioned suggestion about advancement in eras.

 

[Arent11]

Military Tactics is not a science. It's a concept or a technique.

But it seems that the problem here is that we two won't agree what a science is.

To be honest, culture shouldn't just be another kind of science. For the simple reason that we already have science & we don't need 2 things that do the same. This is something that crept into civilization in civ 5 - there are some game mechanics that are redundant.

(1) Science should be the discovery of ideas - technology, social science, whatever
(2) Culture should be spreading & convincing people of ideas, ideologies, religions - spreading borders, converting barbarians, "cultural conquest" like in civ 4. Culture could even be the "currency" necessary to switch governments, implement policies etc.

 

[Siptah]

I'm actually quite happy with what culture does in civ V and civ VI.
Unlocking Governments, unlocking policies, border growth, defending cultural victory (at least in civ V), unlocking some buildings/units as well. And then it is often intertwined with tourism, which is a primary victory yield. I don't think there needs to be more, it is already a major game changer. (I just think that, as with science, it is too easy to get it. Population alone should not yield that much science and culture.)
And I don't think that with the unstacked cities and the border growth by one tile instead of in rings, cultural conquest is a good idea. How would you even try to do that? And would you destroy all districts on the way (you surely need to)? I mean, the cultural bomb of Poland and Australia is a nice little thing and a fun mechanic for those two civs. The idea was poorly implemented in civ IV imho: never really liked that it was possible to take a city with culture, especially if you have units garrisoned in it. And the AI surely should never forgive it if you do it. Just like it doesn't forgive you using the culture bomb in civ V and VI.
Since culture is needed to unlock governments and places, it already is the 'currency' for those things imo.

 

[Arent11]

Unlocking Governments, unlocking policies, [...] unlocking some buildings/units as well.

Is basically social science/philosophy. Why should music or a painting help you with the development of a government? Are you pondering political philosophy while listening to Metallica?

border growth, defending cultural victory (at least in civ V), [...] And then it is often intertwined with tourism, which is a primary victory yield.

Is actual culture, because your music, paintings, impressive architecture convince people of your civ/ideology.

Population alone should not yield that much science and culture.)

That's true. I would accept that libraries or certain policies would raise the "general education" & therefore the science yield throughout the game, but at least in the beginning it should be much smaller.

never really liked that it was possible to take a city with culture, especially if you have units garrisoned in it.

It happens in the real world all the time. If your units run away & your generals are being assassinated because your soldiers simply believe that *that civ over there* is much better than yours, it doesn't matter how advanced your weapons are, they are turned against you.

 

[Siptah]

Is basically social science/philosophy. Why should music or a painting help you with the development of a government? Are you pondering political philosophy while listening to Metallica?

Not that you would get a new government just by looking at pictures though. But I can see the link.
Arts have almost always helped with government and policies in history. Not always with advancing, more often with glorifying the status quo. But also criticizing it and hailing new ideas. And it helped to transport philosophical ideas to the people, if they are included in paintings, plays and music.

It happens in the real world all the time. If your units run away & your generals are being assassinated because your soldiers simply believe that *that civ over there* is much better than yours, it doesn't matter how advanced your weapons are, they are turned against you.

Yes, it did of course happen in the real world. But it also didn't work out in many cases for a variety of reasons. Most often it got interrupted by the rulers. Or sometimes even by the people of the other civ that didn't want it. The fact that you can only counter it with culture in civ IV is not a good idea in my opinion. It usually happens to your small border cities (or you do it to small border cities of others), where getting culture up fast is hard. But newly settled cities, sometimes even for defense against that bordering civ, really should not switch sides just because the other civ looks good, no?

 

[Leyrann]

With regard to advancing in the tech and civic tree, I think eras could be made more important and feel different.
So how about this suggestion, that would also make it more beneficial to be strong in both culture and science (at cost of flexibility):

To start researching a civic or tech from the next era, you need to have 8 civics/techs of the current era unlocked. So if you are in Industrial era tech-wise and you have neglected culture where you are still in renaissance, you have to research 8 industrial science era to get to research a tech from modern era. If you are in industrial era in the civic tree as well, you can for example unlock 4 civics and 4 techs until you are allowed to advance. It would make the two trees more depending on each other without restricting things too much (like needing certain civics for certain techs) and eras would probably feel more like a real era that you go through instead of just going through some paths of the tech tree.

@Leyrann: I wholeheartedly support your last paragraph. This is ~ how I pictured it when I first read about the system. It would be good to leave some untouched that you need to fulfill a certain amount to get anything, like the 6 farms for Feudalism. But why do I need to build two forts? Can't I get 20% boost for each fort that I build? I guess there should be a cap though, otherwise you may be able to complete some very advanced techs by exploiting certain mechanics and get it way too fast. For example, if get 20% boost for apprenticeship with each mine I build, I could rush two builders very early and spam 5 mines to unlock it. Hard requirements for techs/civics that need to be researched earlier could prevent that. Or above mentioned suggestion about advancement in eras.

I like the idea about needing X techs + civics to research techs and civics of the next era, though it should of course be on top of the current requirement system, not "instead of". At least it's much better than "oh yeah, once you've discovered all other techs of this era you discover tech X and then you can start on the techs of the next era" (which is what most "immersion" mods use).

And I guess you could put a maximum of X% on techs and civics, and/or have then unlock only when you have the prerequisites. Or you could do something like this:

12% per mine, up to 60% (five mines).
20% comes from researching [whatever prerequisite techs it has]
20% has to be researched no matter what.

Of course, changing it like this would change the whole system. Also, the last 20% is because if you'd get 100% you'd just go for eureka's and zoom through the tech tree anyways.

Is basically social science/philosophy. Why should music or a painting help you with the development of a government? Are you pondering political philosophy while listening to Metallica?

Well, Metallica's One is a protest song about the Vietnam War...

 

[Arent11]

It usually happens to your small border cities (or you do it to small border cities of others), where getting culture up fast is hard. But newly settled cities, sometimes even for defense against that bordering civ, really should not switch sides just because the other civ looks good, no?

Of course. Ideological/cultural influence should be empire wide. & of course you should be able to suppress such uprisings (if your government is not too liberal) with a large local garrison.

But we are maybe digressing too much from the actual topic of the thread.

 

[dunkleosteus]

There shouls definitely be stronger links between techs and civics. There's a lot of archaeological evidence that the earliest writing in Sumeria was developed for record keeping and organization. Uruk had a system where non-agricultural citizens were given a ration of barley every month- the earliest writing we find just say things like "12 units of barley were given to 6 men each. 6 units of barley were given to 23 men each. 4 units of barley were given to 14 women each. In total 266 units of barley were given to men and women by the priest [name]". Writing would be much better off boosted by something like early empire than by meeting another civ.

But beyond that, I think that the idea of leaf nodes is important. You SHOULD be able to get pretty far without researching certain techs, but only certain techs, and I agree that certain units and buildings should have multiple tech requirements.

The Inca in south America had an empire stretching 2500 miles and with 5000000 citizens without ever inventing the wheel. Wheels are just not very useful for a culture that lives in mountainous terrain.

Writing was certainly used in the mediterranean, but it wasn't introduced to much of Northern Europe until the late Roman period- Norse Runes were a corruption of a primitive southern script and wasn't used for much more than religious inscriptions, yet the Germanic and celtic tribes managed to have complicated social structures, iron working, boat building, etc.

I think a good metric to measure how "realistic" the tech system is is by measuring how well it could recreate history.

 

[4N4C0ND4]

I think a good metric to measure how "realistic" the tech system is is by measuring how well it could recreate history.

That's exactly where I disagree. IMHO civ games are about recreating history, not repeating. It's all about the "what if"
For the technologies, we only see logical connections with our real history. But I'm genuinely sure a lot of things could have been different. What if wo combustion, we would have design lighter than air ships with sails? What if wo iron, we would have build skyscrapers out of wood? If think the possibilities of alternate technology paths are much much wider than we think.

 

[Leyrann]

That's exactly where I disagree. IMHO civ games are about recreating history, not repeating. It's all about the "what if"
For the technologies, we only see logical connections with our real history. But I'm genuinely sure a lot of things could have been different. What if wo combustion, we would have design lighter than air ships with sails? What if wo iron, we would have build skyscrapers out of wood? If think the possibilities of alternate technology paths are much much wider than we think.

How well it could recreate history, not how well it does recreate history.

That said, lighterthan air ships? A lighter-than-air ship has two requirements:

1. It's average density is lower than that of air.
2. People have to survive in there.

I think it goes without saying that all components of the ship itself are heavier than air - there's very few solids lighter than it, and those are all extremely high-tech materials - surely harder to create than a combustion engine. This means that the interior of the ship, to satisfy requirement 1, has to be lighter than air. Without going into detail about how much larger the interior would have to be to make up for the exterior (for comparision: styrofoam, the standard packing material, is already about sixty times heavier than air), this means we have a problem: the ship can't be filled with air, as air doesn't bring back the balance at all. Therefore, it can't satisfy requirement 2.

Now, of course there's - sort of - workarounds. Air balloons function simply on hot air, and their first successfull flight was over a hundred years before the brothers Wright made their first motorized flight. Zeppelins, created around the first time as aircraft, also functioned on the lighter-than-air principle. However, they too were huge while there were no more than a few humans aboard in a seperate space, just like air balloons, and were also slow - again, just like air balloons. So while it is - kind of - possible to create flying stuff functioning on something else than speed (being lighter than air being the obvious other possibility), they're also extremely large, extremely slow and useless for anything but recreational purposes. And this is ignoring the biggest strength of aircraft - their speed, which can only be met by using engines. Or are you going to sail over the North Sea and back again to bombard Berlin at night and be back in England at dawn in WWII? (again, it's not that we should recreate history, but I dare say that if aircraft had been slower than they were in WWII they wouldn't be used for the bombardments they were used for)

 

[dunkleosteus]

Yeah, "could" was the keyword, I guess I didn't make that clear. If the rules and systems in the game allow for history to be repeated, that means every other game [that doesn't follow history] is realistically plausible, and thats I think what should be aimed for.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

...

So, you know, I think it would be cool if the Eureka for some techs was researching previous techs. It could make a nice way to encourage back-filling. Provided, that would probably work better with a tech tree which has a lot more techs, like Civ4, though perhaps not quite that many.

 

[king of nowhere]

nothing concerning sailing is needed to discover nanotechnology, so that particular bit makes sense. you can't find the raw resources for rocketry without mining, though. If the problem is that we want less technologies to be skippable, then the easy solution is to rework slightly the tech tree so that there are more cross-links. if we want to encourage technological and civilian development to go by hand, the easy solution is to give a bonus to research and a penalty to civics if one has more civics than techs, and viceversa, with the bonus and penalty growing larger the greater the imbalance. If we want to discourage beelining, the best solution is to give a penalty to research a technology for every technology of a previous era you have not researched yet.

 

[Leyrann]

nothing concerning sailing is needed to discover nanotechnology, so that particular bit makes sense. you can't find the raw resources for rocketry without mining, though. If the problem is that we want less technologies to be skippable, then the easy solution is to rework slightly the tech tree so that there are more cross-links. if we want to encourage technological and civilian development to go by hand, the easy solution is to give a bonus to research and a penalty to civics if one has more civics than techs, and viceversa, with the bonus and penalty growing larger the greater the imbalance. If we want to discourage beelining, the best solution is to give a penalty to research a technology for every technology of a previous era you have not researched yet.

My point wasn't really that sailing should be required for nanotechnology, but more that you can get to the very last tech at the bottom of the tech tree without researching the very first tech on the top of the tech tree, as well as the other way around (researching the very last tech at the top of the tech tree without researching the very first tech at the bottom of the tech tree).

I think that, indeed, there should be more crosslinks. More importantly, however, there should be more techs in general. There's just not enough techs per era, which means that it either feels like researching goes really slow, or you watch the era's zipping past while you're trying to catch up.