If you could change the tech-tree, what would you change?

Uberness

Warlord
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
184
If you could, how would you change the tech-tree? would you add any wonders to a tech? a extra bonus perhaps? remove certain techs altogether or combine them or add new ones? change the cost of old ones? change dead end techs to lead into new techs? Would like to hear your suggestions.

For my own suggestions and ideas about the tech tree, I would combine cartography with calender and move Pact of the Nilhorn to masonry hunting or festivals.


Would add extra bonuses to techs like the cavalry line for pasture and camp upgrades, and the infantry line for workshop upgrades and merchantism/guild line for other plantation/town/mill upgrades, will make the techs look more interesting give economy bonuses and make them look less bland.

(techs like stirrups only gives horse archers, domesticate elephants and armored cavalry only 1 (although strong) unit, boring)

Stirrups- give something like +2 production and +1 commence from pastures and +1 food from camps, Domesticate Elephants to give +9 production +5 commence from elephant camps (makes sense, and is a expensive tech) maybe even extra worker speed, since the elephants could help the workers.

Perhaps armored cavalry to give +1 happy or -25% war weariness with horses and +4 production from horse


Construction to unlock workshops, and every metal tech from bronzeworking to metal/iron working to give +1 production instead of +1 upgrades spread across diffient tech paths.

Add production and commence boost to plantations at taxation, lumbermill watermill and windmill +1 production commence at guilds, +1-2 more with the guild civic.

Merchantism- give +1commence or production to villages and towns.

For water techs would have Seafaring changed to a lanun trait and give them a free exploration, astronomy to be a alternate path to blasting powder with metalcasting instead of alchemy and have arguebus allowed with alchemy labs -or- with a building from astronomy, such as observatorys back in.

Optics and Astronomy- buildings similar in function to the lighthouse but with commence and production and allow the buildings built next to lakes.

Poisons- unlock a promotion that would allow a archer/recon with first strike 1 and 2 (perhaps give 5-10% strength added first strike promotions?) to cast poison on it's own weapon that would be removed after it's first battle, but able to be recasted.

Tracking- Cost reduction and to unlock a 40% vs recon and hidden units promotion (recon need's a counter promotion, and tracking makes sense for it)

Unquestioning Obedience- I'v personally never researched it, you get a overpriced courthouse with a negative to culture, and a civic that isn't much better then Religion in the same line, could use a wonder like other second tier religious techs or a beaker reduction.

Sacrifice the Weak moved to the Hyborem tech, or allowed by any evil civs at 40 armageddon counter.

Would decrease the cost of threatre's, there nearly useless at 300 production for a early building and would decrease the cost of the Perfect Lyre by half.

Allow drama to lead into honor/deception instead of trade perhaps, since what causes more drama then deception?

Long list, I know, These are my suggestions for the tech tree, tell me what you think, and if any of these suggestions would help gameplay, or what you would change about the tech tree yourself.
 
I was always hoping for more interlocking of the differtent trees.

Trade a very important tech should be possible with seafaring (or optics) or horseback riding because on some map types (archipello) it's just a waste of time to go for the horse techs (unless you need the +movement promotions). Cost should be somewath balanced so that both ways take as long.

The seafaring tree is very bland -> when you need it you just race to astronomy. I don't think that is very reaslistic. So maybe optics shoud also require mathematics and astronomy something like engeneering. This would create a time span longer than one tech for poeple to use tier 2 water units and would integrate seafaring nicely into the non-fantasy tech tree where it belongs in my opinion.

I also agree that the mounted path is too focused on warfare and needs more economic applicatins to make it interesting for non-hippus or rush strategies.
 
Exactly, needs abit more interlocking and options, In vanilla you had the option of getting nationalism from liberalism or instead by divine right, or gunpowder by guilds or education, each with there own economy advantages from free techs new science/gold buildings or wonders.

The horse line stops being a good economy line right after trade while the metals increase production, good idea of having trade available around sailing or optics, and the sea line needs to be abit less dead-end.

I like the way that the religious path forms, splits into choices like good/evil or high priests or berserkers.
 
The few interlocking possibilities is a way to make you have to decide carefully what path to take on the tech tree. You are suggested to specialize, and you probably should if you want to survive in the world of Erebus.

Anyways, I haven't read the whole thread yet, and I don't have any obvious suggestions myself yet.
 
I posted this before taking a look at Rise of Mania, and it seems to have alot of the same changes and suggestions I just mentioned, didn't even know that before posting.
 
The few interlocking possibilities is a way to make you have to decide carefully what path to take on the tech tree. You are suggested to specialize, and you probably should if you want to survive in the world of Erebus.

About all military units are boosted with metals these days. Is it still really possible to specialize these days? :confused:
 
All? Archers, melee and half of the mounted line is only about 3/7ths of all kinds of military types. That's more like 1/3rd of all unit types that can use metal promotions, but doesn't require them (not most at least).

Siege, Arcane, Disciples, Recon still doesn't use metal promotions. (There might be some unit among these but in general). And that's not counting Naval , Beasts.or Animals.

And I don't see what metal has to do with specializing?

I don't think I've ever reached T4 units with more than 2 types of units at once in any of my games before they are over.
 
(edit--re: maniac) Good question, but I'd say, sure it is. Smelting isn't that far down the tech tree, a slight but now necessary detour for archery or horseback units, in the same way that later priests or mages need calendar to hook up their resource, or you might want code of laws for the courthouse, etc.
 
Many naval units do require metals. As do the combat disciple units. That leaves siege, arcane, priests, recon, horse archers, beasts(?) and animals. Do you often build armies built solely around these units? I use these as support units for the units that in FfH require metals. Exception here are rangers, which can function as a sufficient military for a while, but when iron enters the scene these become weaker in comparison to the other tier3 units.

And I don't see what metal has to do with specializing?

If the only way to have a good military, is to have metals, then specialization is not possible: there's only one good choice: race to iron.
 
i would add an automotive tech. you could have the ford car company and the auto ban be wonders and it would enable paved roads and add to culture + it could add a unit like the jeep or transport truck
 
About all military units are boosted with metals these days. Is it still really possible to specialize these days? :confused:

Switching units to the new ore system actually makes them less dependant on metals, not more. Previously you couldn't even build a longbowman without copper, now you can but hes a little weaker than one with copper. In my mind it makes you more able to specialize.
 
Many naval units do require metals. As do the combat disciple units. That leaves siege, arcane, priests, recon, horse archers, beasts(?) and animals. Do you often build armies built solely around these units? I use these as support units for the units that in FfH require metals. Exception here are rangers, which can function as a sufficient military for a while, but when iron enters the scene these become weaker in comparison to the other tier3 units.



If the only way to have a good military, is to have metals, then specialization is not possible: there's only one good choice: race to iron.

I've built whole armies based on Siege + Assassins.
I've built whole armies based on Centaurs. And Horse Archers.
I've built whole armies based on wizards.
I've built whole armies based on monks.
I've built whole armies based on priests.
I've built whole armies based on conjurers.
I've built whole armies based on rangers.
No metals needed.

And now you don't even need metals for Longbowmen. They might be a bit weaker without them, but you can at least build them now.
 
Switching units to the new ore system actually makes them less dependant on metals, not more. Previously you couldn't even build a longbowman without copper, now you can but hes a little weaker than one with copper. In my mind it makes you more able to specialize.

Hmm, rephrasing, I guess my problem isn't exactly with lack of tech specialization, but lack of possible resource variation: iron is way too good. Horses, Incense, Reagents is only necessary for a handful of units. Iron and Copper however boost a very large amount of units. The fact that the unit doesn't absolutely require a resource is IMO irrelevant, because de facto if you have neither copper or iron, the unit wouldn't be worth building anyway.

I've built whole armies based on Siege + Assassins.
I've built whole armies based on <s>Centaurs</s>. And Horse Archers.
I've built whole armies based on <s>wizards</s> [mages].
<s>I've built whole armies based on monks.</s>
I've built whole armies based on priests.
I've built whole armies based on conjurers.
I've built whole armies based on rangers.
No metals needed.

You should write some strategy thread on how you do that. :mischief: Stuff like Monks don't count however, as those are civilization-specific - won't help any other civilization.
 
Well there are other similar units that you can use, some religion specific, some higher tier. I just described which I've used so far.

As you've done, wizards can be replaced with mages, centaurs with Horsemen, or Boar Riders, or elven Fyrdwells.
 
Siege+Assassins is an unstoppable strategy (barring exploitive magic use) used by Deity AI's eventually.

I've see Grey use it to demolish superior forces with superior numbers. Iron is a sad sad replacement for a Siege+Assassin force.

Horse Archers are an amazing force as well, until Tier4 units come into play they can easily dominate and hold large empires.

And anything with spells can easily be the backbone of a superior army.
 
Is this assuming the Iron-owning enemy is or is not using siege/assassins/horse archers/mages/summoners too?
 
Is this assuming the Iron-owning enemy is or is not using siege/assassins/horse archers/mages/summoners too?
Probably, because if they can use all that, then either they've out tech'ed you, or you should have even better units you are using as well.

edit: dang, another slow response in this thread. My post-fu is weak.
 
are you asking if A can beat A+B? lol

Yes I am, and I do think such a situation is very realistic, and not a sign that you're per definition outteched.

Basically I divide FfH's units in two categories: brute strength units, and support units. Brute strength units I define as unit that can both attack and defend well on their own. Support units I define as units that can't defend well without any assistance, and whose offensive tactic usually entails weakening enemy units (by withdrawal, summons etc), not killing them on their own.
Given this:

Brute strength units:

crusader/paramander/stygian guard/lunatic = religious
maceman
pikeman
crossbowman
longbowman (okay, in RoM they are at least... :mischief: )
arquebus (while its resource is as rare as mithril, it costs 50&#37; more than a mithril maceman...)
ranger (at least if your enemy doesn't have mithril, but even if not, the only resourceless brute strength unit costs more than all the other in this list, so you lose in the long run)

Support units:

priest
mage
conjurer
assassin
horse archer
chariot
siege


Five of the seven brute strength units require iron to be at full strength. The sixth, Arquebus, requires Gunpowder, which is a relatively rare resource. The seventh, Ranger, is more costly than the rest. So, basically without metals, you can't compete in the brute strength department.

Support units on the other hand are much more varied resource-requirement-wise. Incense, Gems, Reagents, Mana, Horses, or no resource at all! So you're definitely assured to have at least one or a couple of them. The more you have of them, the more options you have in warfare, but one well-chosen one of them should usually suffice to complement your brute strength.


Suppose I have iron and my enemy not. My military research strategy usually is to first b-line to a brute strength unit, and then go for a support unit. Since my enemy doesn't have iron, s/he/it b-lined to a support unit first. As you say, while I don't have a support myself, my enemy could probably still hold me off. But what will my enemy do if he's been unable to destroy all his iron-owning enemies before any of them gets a support unit. Isn't it inevitable that without Iron you'll end up in a A versus A+B, with a predictable outcome? :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom