Needs more Classical techs?

[Xetal]

It isn't just early techs, there are very few techs overall.

Civ5 currently has 74 techs.

Civ4 had something like 102.

 

[bjbrains]

Civ 4 vanilla had 86 techs. BTS added 6 more. That's not a big difference, especially once you realize that the missing techs are mostly/all civic/social 'techs', whose bonuses/roles have been moved to the social policy tree.

 

[Xetal]

I'm pretty sure Civ4 had more than 92 techs. Hold on, let me go count them.

Just counted them, 92 it is, my bad.

 

[Xetal]

That makes it -only- a 20% decrease in the amount of techs from civ4 to civ5.

As far as "some came from an expansion", I don't think anyone is going to weigh the gameplay of Civ5 against civ4 vanilla, they're going to weigh it against the finished civ4 game. Civ5, in order to be competitive, needs to compare favorably to civ4 BtS.

 

[bjbrains]

You missed the second half of my post: That all the fluffy 'social' techs from Civ 4 have been moved to the social policy tree, which is obviously a level of complexity/decision making far and above the civic system. You're not going to miss Meditation, priesthood, polytheism, monotheism, monarchy, constitution, democracy, feudalism, Aesthetics, 'Drama', and military tradition. None of those are actual technological advances anyway, just social developments/systems. The actual social developments in the game now are linked directly with culture, which makes a whole lot more 'sense', and makes culture actually useful for non-cultural victories.

 

[Thyrwyn]

...The actual social developments in the game now are linked directly with culture, which makes a whole lot more 'sense', and makes culture actually useful for non-cultural victories.

I have to agree with bjbrains - and (admittedly, without having seen the game) I have to say that the new social policy/culture link sounds rather elegant.

 

[Xetal]

You missed the second half of my post: That all the fluffy 'social' techs from Civ 4 have been moved to the social policy tree, which is obviously a level of complexity/decision making far and above the civic system. You're not going to miss Meditation, priesthood, polytheism, monotheism, monarchy, constitution, democracy, feudalism, Aesthetics, 'Drama', and military tradition. None of those are actual technological advances anyway, just social developments/systems. The actual social developments in the game now are linked directly with culture, which makes a whole lot more 'sense', and makes culture actually useful for non-cultural victories.

Valid points.

I just have some concerns about over-simplification. It doesn't look like they're necessarily going that route, but I'll be happier once I have a full copy of the game and it confirms that my concerns will ill-founded.

 

[ripple01]

Another one I'll defend:
Chivalry -> Banking
The rise of banking is tied to the decline of feudalism, and the rise of towns. Now feudalism is out of the tech tree, so the closest you get is chivalry. Since banking is the product of the decline of things related to chivalry, it makes some sense to make it a product of it.

This actually makes very good sense, the Knights Templar were the original bankers in medieval Europe. You could make a "deposit" with the local Knights Templar chapter in one city and go to another city and withdraw your funds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar, second paragraph

Cheers,
ripple01

 

[Souron]

I think the original bankers of Europe were not the Knights Templar, but the Jews. Not because of flexibility of withdrawal, but because they were willing to make loans. In Christendom, lending money on interest was considered a sin (usury), so only the Jews were willing to do so.

Loans, not deposits, are after all the primary function of banks.

 

[johny smith]

many of technology links are NON SCENSE
e.g.
agriculture -> archery / mining
wheel -> maths
trapping -> civil service
currency -> chivalry
chivalry -> banking
physics -> printing press
printing press -> economics
navigation -> archaeology
accoustics -> scientific theory
economics -> military sciense
military sciense -> steam power
biology -> electricity
combutsion -> athomic theory
mass media -> computers
combutsion -> laser

did developers just thow techs onto the tree in random order?

Well I said many times that the tech were illogical in Civ4. But after finally see this thread and the tech tree screenshots...I hope they really seem to be trying to put more focus on the balance with this approach. Because that is the only possible logical thing to come out of it. Trapping after animal husbandry? Whatever.

So yes the same question from me. But not to repeat my views over and over I will leave it at that.

 

[Thormodr]

Don't forget that City States will have their own tech trees. Perhaps there are a few Classical techs hidden away there.

 

[Calouste]

That makes it -only- a 20% decrease in the amount of techs from civ4 to civ5.

As far as "some came from an expansion", I don't think anyone is going to weigh the gameplay of Civ5 against civ4 vanilla, they're going to weigh it against the finished civ4 game. Civ5, in order to be competitive, needs to compare favorably to civ4 BtS.

And in Civ4 you could skip or ignore for a long time big chunks of the tech tree:
Hunting-Archery-Horseback Riding
Polytheism-Monotheism-Theology-Divine Right
Literature-Music-Military Tradition (and probably even Aesthetics and Drama)
Democracy-Communism-Fascism

 

[King Jason]

That makes it -only- a 20% decrease in the amount of techs from civ4 to civ5.

As far as "some came from an expansion", I don't think anyone is going to weigh the gameplay of Civ5 against civ4 vanilla, they're going to weigh it against the finished civ4 game. Civ5, in order to be competitive, needs to compare favorably to civ4 BtS.

Actually, I imagine a lot of people will. Especially those who owned civ4 vanilla, and their first (and only) experience in civ4 wasn't through buying a bundle pack.

Civ has always been a game of ongoing developments due to it's expansion cycles.

Weighing civ5 against the "finished" civ4 game is inane because the finished product of civ4 had an extra 2 years of development time. To compare like that, we must acknowledge that in civ5 we are not buying the "finished" product. That, in all likely hood we will be purchasing 1-2 expansions (and whatever DLC). Just as I imagine most presumed that civ4 vanilla was not the "finished" product, in the manner you suggest.

 

[AriochIV]

Weighing civ5 against the "finished" civ4 game is inane because the finished product of civ4 had an extra 2 years of development time. To compare like that, we must acknowledge that in civ5 we are not buying the "finished" product. That, in all likely hood we will be purchasing 1-2 expansions (and whatever DLC). Just as I imagine most presumed that civ4 vanilla was not the "finished" product, in the manner you suggest.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to say... I know we have to account for later Civ V expansions, but everyone is playing Civ IV plus two expansions right now; it's not reasonable to expect people to accept going backwards in terms of features just because the sequel is "new."

That said, I don't think they have gone backwards. In terms of number of units, tile improvements, resources and especially buildings, Civ V is very competetive with Civ IV + BtS. They have trimmed a few technologies, but they were mostly dead-end techs that people tended to skip over, or were related to Religions or Civics (which are no longer in the game).

As I think I've said before, I really like the early Ancient/Classical tech tree, because it makes more gameplay options available sooner, so you can go right out and do what you want to instead of hitting the End Turn button constantly for the first half-hour.

 

[Thyrwyn]

The question isn't really so much "should there be more techs?" but rather "what would additional techs do?" Have they left anything out that really has to be there? I don't think any of the techs in Civ V are over-burdened with units/buildings/improvements/abilities, but until we get to play the game we can't really say.

 

[killmeplease]

I'd like to challenge you to propose an alternative "sensible" suggestion to what would be a good precursor to Atomic Theory. And what could be good precursors and successors for Economics. Unless of course you want to challenge the relevance of those techs to begin with...

electricity -> athomic theory
navigation + banking -> economics

 

[Xetal]

The question isn't really so much "should there be more techs?" but rather "what would additional techs do?" Have they left anything out that really has to be there? I don't think any of the techs in Civ V are over-burdened with units/buildings/improvements/abilities, but until we get to play the game we can't really say.

I think the late game has a lot to be desired for unit selection and techs.

So much has changed between early industrial and modern times that I think that at least all the units listed should be included in the game:

Ironclad (slow, can't go out to ocean, and absolutely dominates the older Frigates)

Destroyer (WW2 level of tech, cheap, fast, can detect submarines and gets a bonus against them)
Submarine (WW2 level of sub/U-boat. Decent stealth, moves somewhat slowly, big bonus while attacking)
Aircraft Carrier (WW2 level of carrier, basic platform for aircraft launch)
Battleship (WW2 level, powerful in bombardment and direct combat but very expensive to build and maintain, so much so that it is arguable if it is worth the cost)
Cruiser (WW2 level of ship. Carries 2 aircraft. Better physical combat than the destroyer, but worse than a battleship. Does not detect subs, but moves somewhat quickly and can use it's AA to protect itself or ships 1 tile away from air attacks)

Missile Submarine or Nuclear Submarine (Modern level, can carry a couple tactical missiles (nuclear or cruise) and launch them. Same kind of attacking-bonus as the older submarine.
AEGIS Cruiser or Missile Cruiser (Modern level, can carry a couple tactical missiles, can defend against tactical missiles, AA attack, strongest direct/bombard naval unit in the game)
DDS Destroyer (Modern level anti-sub unit + direct/bombard unit. Cheaper than an AEGIS, but isn't quite as strong and lacks AA/Anti-missile defenses and cannot hold a tactical missile.
Supercarrier (Modern carrier, holds 3 aircraft and is large enough that although it does not have a good direct attack it takes quite a bit to sink. Has anti-missile defenses)


The current roster of naval units really doesn't give the feel of an "arms race". I mean, consider destroyers: You get the industrial-level tech to build them, you do so, and that is the highest tech of that type of ship you'll ever need. Ditto for aircraft carriers.

Outside of naval units, I think that leaving out UAV (Drone) aircraft is a mistake. "Bomber" type aircraft really went from standard Bombers in WW2 and ended up as UAVs due to cost (and other) reasons.

Also I don't think I've seen an ICBM yet. Atomic bomb, cruise missile, and nuclear missile are all good for missile weapons, but ICBM really needs to be included.

 

[bjbrains]

Ummm, the only things on your list that doesn't exist are the cruiser (function rolled into carrier, no need for another ship that's only slightly different), DDS destroyer (Not needed), and supercarrier (Not enough difference over a regular carrier).

 

[King Jason]

Arioch's page lists a cruiser;

The modern navy

Destroyer
Movement: 8; Strength: 25; Ranged Strength: 22; Cost: 254; Required Resources: Oil
Technology: Electricity
Notes: Has increased Sight range, and can detect Submarines. As with the Battleship, the Strength stats of the Destroyer have recently been reduced; the old stats were: Strength 60, Ranged 30.

Battleship
Movement: 4; Strength: 40; Ranged Strength: 32; Range: 3; Cost: 500 hammers; Required Resources: Oil
Technology: Telegraph
Abilities: Indirect Fire (can bombard a target it can't see), Vulnerable to air & submarine attacks.
Notes: Appearance based on the U.S. Iowa-class battleships. The stats on this unit have recently been dramatically reduces: the old stats are Move 5, Strength 100, Ranged 50.

Submarine
Movement: 5; Strength: 15; Ranged Strength: 60; Range: 3; Cost: 380; Required Resources: Oil
Technology: Refrigeration
Notes: Invisible to all units except Destroyers and other Submarines. "Can cause major damage to other ships if they can get into range without being seen." Can enter Ice hexes.


Missile Cruiser
Movement: 7; Strength: 40; Ranged Strength: 25; Range: 3; Cost: 520; Required Resource: ?
Technology: Robotics
Abilities: Indirect Fire
Notes: Can carry 3 missiles (Guided Missile or Nuclear Missile). Bonus against enemy aircraft.


-----

Honestly, I think that's enough variation really.

 

[Xetal]

Ummm, the only things on your list that doesn't exist are the cruiser (function rolled into carrier, no need for another ship that's only slightly different), DDS destroyer (Not needed), and supercarrier (Not enough difference over a regular carrier).

By the same logic you could say that modern armor is unnecessary (close enough to a tank), that jet fighters are unnecessary (close enough to a fighter).

My point was that you have a clear difference between earlier-industrial units and modern units in many categories (tanks, aircraft), but that the more modern unit was left out in other categories... even when the real-life change in the units purpose/design was at least as much a difference as the difference between a WW2 tank and a modern tank.