i don't believe in the age barrier for science

[sebanaj]

if you have let's say mathematics, construction, masonry, literature, u should be able for example to go for engineering without having to wait to complete the others.

I think the tech tree should be re done in only one screen. And everything should be related, like I shouldn't be able to build knights if I don't have warrior code, horseback riding, monotheism, monarchy, feudalism, and chivalry. And also u should have iron and horses.

u may not have monarchy researched but able to build knights in the middle age in the current system.

 

[sebanaj]

then you'll be researching the next advance for ages. not just 40 turns.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Seems like you'd prefer a Civ2-style tech-tree. I dunno why they introduced the Civ3 era system, but it undeniably cuts down the possibility for weird slantings of your research (mine in Civ2 was very often far ahead in military matters as compared to everything else).

Just out of curiosity; why do you think that Monarchy should be a prerequisite for Chivalry? While real-world chivalry undoubtedly arose in a society whose governmental structure would be represented as a Monarchy in Civ3, what the advance really does is, of course, representing the knowledge required to set up heavy armoured cavalry - hardly something that necessarily requires a feudal society. The Sassanids used heavy, knight-like, cavalry back in late ancient times, and their form of government would presumeably be Desoptism in Civ terms.

 

[sebanaj]

Knights were supposed to be feudal lords then they are linked with Monarchy.
Ok there were those Sassanid Cavalry u said but they were "Sassanid Cavalry" not Knights literally.

Most of the western european had feudalism and had knights, when they weren't fighting each other in tournaments they went for the crusades.

 

[Reboot]

Bear in mind that there are other Civs besides the European ones. Chivalry represent heavy cavalry, as what Conformist said.

Yes, the Civ2 tech tree where everything's linked to each other doesn't sound too bad. The Civ3 "Ages" system should not have techs starting without pre-requisites like that. A continous flow from tech-to-tech would be better.

The funny thing is, as it is the Ages concept doesn't do anything to the game rules! Game rules are exactly the same in one Age or the other. The Ages concept seem only to divide the game into four distinct "Ages" - graphically. Beyond that, nothing.

 

[acjvanv]

If we go back to Civ2 style, then we have to come up with something new for the scientific trait of getting a new advance.

 

[Reboot]

Ages system and Civ2 tech tree is not incompatible.

You can have a continous flow of techs as well as dividing which techs belong to which Age. By controlling what techs are necessary to bring about the next age, Civs still can move from Age to Age.

 

[sebanaj]

hmm but with that idea the civ must have everything researched to advance, if i put every science advance obligatory.

with that idea the militarist won't be able to have chivalry because they don't have republic... so no, making everything obligatory isn't the idea...

with my idea the militarist won't get more than knights, because of gunpowder. unless they choose for education also.

Zulues wouldn't get anything after the first age.