More Ages!!!!11!!!!111!!

[sir_schwick]

@sir_schwick now, you got me confused...
(but as far as I understand) this system isn't good. The normal player doesn't want to chose their tech tree and they don't want to think long, they just want to play. So NO to choices.

mfG mitsho

If your right, the fact is the death of compelling strategy games. In that case I'll just keep playing SMAC and the endless TWs they can produce.

 

[dh_epic]

That's a pretty odd thing to say. Like the tech tree is somehow not part of the game, and when you're making decisions about it you're somehow not actually playing.

 

[mitsho]

erm, you didn't answer my question,
Antd what I wanted to say is that there are already enough pre-game decision in civ3. We don't need more buttons to toggle off or on.

mfG mitsho

 

[sealman]

better to have more unliked features to toggle on and off than to force players to play with features they do not want.

For instance, I would much rather spend an extra minute to click no civil wars or any other option I do not like, then to be forced to play with this option.

 

[mitsho]

But would this be still civ? I mean, every game has to have a basis. And no developer will want to leave everything to the player (that way, the players each design an own game).
And besides, perhaps the developers want to design the feature 'civil wars' that it is important and effects also other features...

YOu can't leave everything to the player.

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

Cool, in that case, I'd like to turn off:
- the need to upgrade units
- the need for workers
- tech trading
- gold
- resources

 

[Stid]

good idea Amenhotep bt its not really YOURS is it? id just like to see the different stages of development for the cities on the map i think they look cool

 

[MeatWad]

I would prefer more techs, with a more thought-out less mechanical tech tree. It could look like a spider web of research-leading to other reasearch-etc. in a historically and technically accurate manner. More techs as years/turn gets smaller, to represent explosive growth of modern age, balanced by less research time.

 

[Magma]

acually its agood idea that with more techs/ages.
u need more ages to get more techs, why?
Heres the answer: how do u ever think that all those techs can be on your screen?

dh epic:
resurces r necesary, why?
Answer: how can peopel have iron weapons, when they dont have iron?
gold.... why do u need gold/money?
answer: how do think a land can go bankarupty without money?
ok upgrading units should be there to.
ok that all wat i had to say.

 

[sabo]

Why are there ages at all?

so the scientific civs can get a free tech with every new age

 

[dh_epic]

ok tech tree should be there to

Okay, I'll do a better job arguing for a tech tree.

The tech tree should be there. How can people have libraries if they don't have writing?

I don't even know how this little discussion came up, but I think it came from people who (a) wanted to be able to turn of features and (b) wanted to be able to turn off the tech tree. If the feature is worth turning off, then it's probably worth leaving out altogether, unless you can tweak it to be balanced, meaningful, and empowering.

And if people are really attached to Civ 3, let alone Civ 2, someone can make a mod for Civ 4 so they can play the exact same game they played a bunch of years ago. That'll be money well spent, I'm sure.

 

[tmarcl]

some folks just want more freedom to research disparous techs without so many limitations (rockets before wheels).

On the other hand, is that realistic? Granted, you don't need a wheel to launch a rocket, but I doubt that you'd find hundreds (thousands?) of people willing to carry it to the launchpad. You also wouldn't be able to support the population required to develop the technology and infrastructure to build the rocket in the first place.

An aqueduct isn't really necessary without a granary, nor is a sewer system. Or a hospital, for that matter. Modern medicine wouldn't even have come into existence without the initial crowding of many humans into cities.

What you need to remember is that (to quote a cliche') "necessity is the mother of invention." People invented wheels because they needed a way to carry loads from one place to another more easily than they had before. Pottery was developed as a way to carry things short distance that couldn't be carried in a leather sack, and to store things for later use. The more "necessities" that cropped up, the more "inventions" appeared to deal with them.

As for the idea of the Theory of Gravity needing to be a seperate tech, I'd have to say it's silly. Certainly, for millenia, people realized that if you drop something, it'll hit the next level surface it finds and stay there (unless you've got a cat, then all bets are off). I think it should be combined with Scientific Method, since that's what Newton's law is really about. Someone coming along and saying, 'This is how things appear to work, we can't find anything to contradict it, therefore, it's likely a good theory.'

Ages, in my opinion, are necessary, if only to give you an idea of how far you're progressing in the game. I realize that there are those of you who beat the game before you get catapults, but for the rest of us, it takes a bit longer.

 

[Mewtarthio]

You really should have put a third option on the poll. If anything, we need fewer ages. Namely, one.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm definitely down with fewer ages.

 

[Elgalad]

If Ages are kept, they should mean more than just a graphics and tech tree change. Those are in there for flavor, something the game desperately needs but I'd really like to see more. If they are discarded in favor of a progressive evolution of the civ's age we need to keep the flavor aspects somehow. I know this has been covered (to some extent) for example, the city graphics changing due to techs discoveries.. But dont let the game become just one long race to space. Milestones and road signs can be fun too.

You know,

It's true..

When times have changed

Your view has too

It's preordained!

Burma Shave



-Elgalad

 

[WillSen]

Great idea. The new ages on the conquests are cool and civ 4 could make it even better

 

[dh_epic]

I think that having the tech tree split and converge can offer inherent milestones. When you finally get that "bottleneck" or "crossroads" tech, you do experience a kind of satisfaction.

Technologies that change the look of your cities are still doable. But I'd like to pull them apart, instead of watching your cities metamorphasize 4 seperate times.

1. Cities founded later in the game should look different from cities founded earlier

- old style temples and cathedrals and even political buildings and palaces will dominate the landscape of old cities, alongside the new skyscrapers

- newer cities will look purely modern

2. Seperate techs will alter the appearance of seperate city features (in the facade)

- e.g.: the central government building will change form based on big government and religious changes
- e.g.: the peripheral buildings will change form based on construction and quality of life changes

3. More cultural difference between buildings, even in the modern ages

- part of this is accomplished in #1, where old buildings are still (slightly) apparent
- having a slight continental flavor to a skyscraper is important (Latin America, Near East, Far East...)

4. If there are multiple different paths through the tech tree (making it more of a tech web), the paths you choose should influence your look.

- e.g.: making an endrun for military techs to concentrate your power should make your peripheral buildings look slummy, and your palaces collosal
- e.g.: moving towards democratization, taking a "traditional walk" through the standard tech tree, should keep your cities looking more homogenous but beautiful

Although it is a large amount of work for a small payoff. Still, if they did even one of the above, I think that would be pretty cool in terms of making you feel like you're truly playing through your own rewritten version of history... (Instead of Civ 3, where it feels like you're taking a Civ and re-living the steps of Westernization.)

More just food for thought.

 

[sir_schwick]

On the other hand, is that realistic? Granted, you don't need a wheel to launch a rocket, but I doubt that you'd find hundreds (thousands?) of people willing to carry it to the launchpad. You also wouldn't be able to support the population required to develop the technology and infrastructure to build the rocket in the first place.

An aqueduct isn't really necessary without a granary, nor is a sewer system. Or a hospital, for that matter. Modern medicine wouldn't even have come into existence without the initial crowding of many humans into cities.

What you need to remember is that (to quote a cliche') "necessity is the mother of invention." People invented wheels because they needed a way to carry loads from one place to another more easily than they had before. Pottery was developed as a way to carry things short distance that couldn't be carried in a leather sack, and to store things for later use. The more "necessities" that cropped up, the more "inventions" appeared to deal with them.

As for the idea of the Theory of Gravity needing to be a seperate tech, I'd have to say it's silly. Certainly, for millenia, people realized that if you drop something, it'll hit the next level surface it finds and stay there (unless you've got a cat, then all bets are off). I think it should be combined with Scientific Method, since that's what Newton's law is really about. Someone coming along and saying, 'This is how things appear to work, we can't find anything to contradict it, therefore, it's likely a good theory.'

Ages, in my opinion, are necessary, if only to give you an idea of how far you're progressing in the game. I realize that there are those of you who beat the game before you get catapults, but for the rest of us, it takes a bit longer.

I think you caught onto something that is very important. Developement is about overcoming problems, not a histograph victory. This is why ages are not a good idea. They assume that all societies faced the exact same problems and figure out how to solve them the same way. A truly dynamic tech tree would focus on the issues caused by technology and developement, and what is avaliable to solve them. If you do not have Iron, why would you develop Iron working?

 

[dh_epic]

Heck, if you're surrounded by gold, I would think that "gold working" would become a part of your technical vocabulary quite fast

I mean maybe that's an extreme example, but I'd love to see the tech tree become more like a tech web. Something dynamic -- taking you in equal but different directions.

 

[tmarcl]

I think you caught onto something that is very important. Developement is about overcoming problems, not a histograph victory. This is why ages are not a good idea. They assume that all societies faced the exact same problems and figure out how to solve them the same way. A truly dynamic tech tree would focus on the issues caused by technology and developement, and what is avaliable to solve them. If you do not have Iron, why would you develop Iron working?

Enh. I think we're mixing up the idea of free research vs tech tree and the idea of ages vs none. While it's true that all societies didn't solve the same problems the same way (the Aztecs, for example, never discovered Iron Working, nor did they have horses for Horseback Riding), sooner or later you're going to run into things that *must* be researched in order to advance as a society. While China and the West didn't meet for most of history, they still discovered the same basic building principles (arches, etc). Wheels are a basic one, as is the creation of weapons and armies and systems of government. As societies grew, they developed advanced agriculture, road networks, etc.

Also, with trade, more and more of this becomes universal. A prime example is the Plains Indians of the American West. They became expert horse warriors after the horse was reintroduced to the continent.

While for the most part, research can be unfettered, you will eventually come to points where you can't have one advance without a previous one. There is no banking system, for example, without the basic concept of commerce to begin with, not to mention a road network, and every thing else that gets people to the point that they have enough extra resources that they can afford to put them into a bank in the first place.

And that's where ages come in. Ages tell you when you've passed one point of your existence (basic tribes, day to day survival, etc) and entered into another (actual city, standing army, record keeping, etc). While certainly in real life, no one sits down and says, "Aha! We are entering into a new age!", historians do look back and group human history into various ages. (Stone, Iron, Bronze, Information, Space, etc.) These ages are tied into technological and cultural developments (Bronze tools vs. Stone tools, for instance).

With a system of ages, historians (and players) can have an idea of where people are at at a given time. If I know a Civ is in the Stone Age still, I won't expect to see knights in shining armor charging me with a lance. If my Civ is starting to build railroad tracks, I know it's because I'm now having an Industrial Age.

At least, that's the difference as I see it.