New Tech Paradigm

[sir_schwick]

Those of you who know me sighed when they saw the world Paradigm for liekly the fourth or fifth time. But seriously, like all my other outlandish proposals, this one expands upon what a concept is. This concept is about technology.

Why do we research in Civ?

In Civilization the purpose of research is to allow access to various products. These products are units, improvements, governments, wonders, and a couple miscellaneous abilities.

What does broad(unapplied) research yield in the current model?

Research yields these products in a useable and universal form.

Why are you calling it broad, or unapplied, research?

Because in my proposal there will be such a thing as applied research. So now there are two types of research. The first, broad, is universal as the desingers see fit. The second, applied, is based upon the broad research that is completed.

What is the purpose of unapplied(broad) research in your model?

Unapplied research gives you pieces and tools from which to construct the products you need to build a successful civilization.

Construct? This sounds a lot like the cumbersome Unit Workshop from SMAC.

It does, but the differences are what matters. First, the UW in SMAC was only for units. In my model improvements, wonders, and even social things will be constructed. Second, the UW could be accessed anytime. In my model you will have to put scientific effort into applied research.

Still not convinced, but explain applied research to me.

Whenever you complete research a pop-up window asks you where to send your science next. Here you can choose to do more unapplied research, or select applied research. Once there you can construct a certain number of units, improvements, wonders, governments, or other abilities using the pieces and tools gained from unapplied research. Once the applied research is completed, you will have access to these products you were researching.

Still sounds like you would get lots of units and confusion, just like the UW.

Yes, you can. However applied research does not send you further down the tech tree. All the time you spend on applied research is time not spent on broad research.

So why do applied research at all?

Because you might find the improvements or units useful. Being in the middle ages with (1/1/1) units as you best unit is not a problem unless your ancient era neighbor has (3/3/1) units. Knowing everything but having nothing is not very productive.

So you develop according to what you think you need.

Correct. Civilizations far from water will not waste their time with developing harbours. Civilizations that are isolated will not need to develop modern militaries. Civs in a contested war or preparing for one are going to spend a lot of time trying to get an incrementally better military.

Fair enough. What about tech trading and whatnot?

I have a few ideas, but first want to see how this idea overall is taken. No one likes to read long posts.

What about the interface and ways you can design these products?

Same answer from previous question. Such interface discussions will come, hopefully from the CFCers that are better at it than myself. Explaining ideas on the mechanics of this idea would increase the length of this post to unreadable levels.

Spoiler :

What is it with you and oraphobia?

Are you sure it is oraphobia? Would not that be a fear of speaking?

Well this is online oration.

Not really, especially since it is TYPED.

I don't know what kind of phobia that is!

It is not my problem you are stupid. Why did I agree to do this in the first place?

Don't ask me. I am a figment of your imagination.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sounds good to me, Sir_Schwick, but I just want to be sure that I understand correctly. So, lets say that you get the 'Broad' knowledge of 'Bronze Working', does this mean that you might then have a choice between the 'Applied' technologies of 'Weaponsmithing', 'armour fashioning', or 'domestic Bronzeware creation'-or perhaps going straight on to the next broad knowledge of 'Iron Working'? If so, then that IS a good idea, though I can't help but wonder how it would fit into MY idea of a 'semi-blind' research budget ! Perhaps the semi-blind research system could apply to only the broad knowledges, and then you can allocate a percentage OF the percentage you have into your applied sciences. So, for instance, lets say you have 40% of your research budget allocated to industrial technology-which gets you bronze working-you can then apply 30% of this budget (or 12% of the total) to 'weaponsmithing', 30% to armour fashioning, 20% to 'domestic bronzeware' and leave 20% of your industrial research for acquiring the next broad tech. How does that sound S_S??

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I'll clarify, since percentages scare me.

Blind research for broad research is an excellent idea.

Applied research would be more specific then technology, it would be units, improvements, wonders, abilties, social and government models. For example, once you finish Bronze Working, Warrior Code, and Iron Working, you would have the pieces to develop Armoured Spearman(require Iron), Spearman, Basic Barracks, etc. Also, when you design things for applied research, you are putting together pieces. Buildings can have a religious tool, happiness piece, culture piece, etc. THese pieces and tools are aquired from Broad research.

Also, this system means that you can design improvements and units for your need. Suppose you have cities that generate a lot of trade but few shields. ONe of yoru applied research tasks may be temples that are more expensive to maintain, but take much less shields. Units designed for jungle warfare may be really useful or necessary for civs in the jungle. Other civs would then have to take extra time preparing to take out the jungle civ.

Also, you can only research one thing at a time. This means you are either doing Broad or Applied research. Tons of applied research will slow you down on the tech tree. Tons of broad research means you are advanced wtihout the products of advance.

 

[Enkidu_Warrior]

first, i'm a big fan of blind research. second, i feel dubious about separating pure or broad research from applied.

that said, i'd like to offer an observation from diamond's guns, germs, and steel. innovation and development, he says, do not occur from explosive individual genius, but rather are accumulated over time through tinkering.

on the other hand, one could make a pretty good case that pure or broad knowledge does occur from explosive individual genius (copernicus, newton, galileo, einstein, etc.).

it would be nice if a model incorporating both types of research had mechanics that reflected their different development. that is, applied research should come slow and steady, but pure knowledge requires a burst of creativity and genius.

not sure how those mechanics could be reflected, but there it is.

edit: maybe a small proportion of your research budget always goes towards applied but you can pick which areas to apply it to first... that way it's still impacted by your total research level but drip feeds practical results as you make pure discoveries...

EW

 

[Kayak]

I too am in favor of blind research, but the ruler (ie. us) should have some influence.
The small part of the research that you could direct would represent patronage (earlier ages) and government subsidies (later ages).

 

[dh_epic]

This is an interesting idea, Schwick. And I'm always EXCITED when I see you use the word paradigm, because I know we're in for a treat.

To me, this would allow people to speed through the tech tree in new ways. Instead of spending 20 turns researching Invention, I can spend 12 turns researching invention and then decide if I want to spend 4-8 more turns to figure out Leonardo's Workshop and Longbowmen.

The question is what happens to those 8 turns you save? If people are constantly squeezing out a few turns here and there on the tech tree, will there be more techs? Will there be more applied branches?

-----

As a side note, I think seperating social and organizational progress from technical and militaristic progress would make the game much more interesting.

Technical progress is almost always applied these days -- you start trying to figure something out so you can find a new energy source, or build a new weapon.

Social progress is often UNAPPLIED. Someone comes up with an idea "you know, a perfect government would look a lot like this". Or "maybe we shouldn't pledge allegiance to the King, but to a flag, to an idea, to our values." Very often, it doesn't catch on! It takes a lot of energy to change how an entire society thinks and works. Democracy, for instance -- sometimes the more you push, the less likely it becomes.

 

[sir_schwick]

As a side note, I think seperating social and organizational progress from technical and militaristic progress would make the game much more interesting.

Technical progress is almost always applied these days -- you start trying to figure something out so you can find a new energy source, or build a new weapon.

Social progress is often UNAPPLIED. Someone comes up with an idea "you know, a perfect government would look a lot like this". Or "maybe we shouldn't pledge allegiance to the King, but to a flag, to an idea, to our values." Very often, it doesn't catch on! It takes a lot of energy to change how an entire society thinks and works. Democracy, for instance -- sometimes the more you push, the less likely it becomes.
__________________

You know that is a very interesting point that could use exploration. I really have nothing productive to add at the moment. Please keep working on this idea.

To me, this would allow people to speed through the tech tree in new ways. Instead of spending 20 turns researching Invention, I can spend 12 turns researching invention and then decide if I want to spend 4-8 more turns to figure out Leonardo's Workshop and Longbowmen.

The question is what happens to those 8 turns you save? If people are constantly squeezing out a few turns here and there on the tech tree, will there be more techs? Will there be more applied branches?

They can squeeze if they feel their current needs are met by current equipment. I was thinking that broad research should take a long time, so you must decide whether to wait awhile before your next upgrade cycle or not. Also, the purpose of applied tech was so you could keep making incrementally better versions of weapons(for militarily competative games), improvements, or make a really good all purpose building that fits your terrain strengths.

 

[GoodGame]

Applied Research might actually be the most realistic paradigm overall.

Historically, most research is done to improve current situations, solve problems, and tinker with known solutions (Most medieval invention that I'm aware of was tinkering, and working from the ancient principles of science). It is usually not done for pure discovery, unless in the hands of rare, creative intellectuals (e.g. Scientific Leaders). Applied research occasionally leads to blind, broad discoveries, so it can still advance the tech tree.

Also, realistically, blind research is only likely by a wealthy, philosophically advanced society, probably with a strong industrial base to be successful; It's a lot like re-inventing the wheel when you already have wheels. Even astronomy, which might seem like intentional, blind research, was basically generations of tinkering with applications of geometry, practical observations, etc..; It only became blind research once it was well-funded by governments and in the hand of few elite intellectuals.

Also, realistically, most ancient technologies are applied research, and even the more abstract ones are really generations of tinkering (e.g. math/geometry). Very few ancient knowledge is considered a modern, pure science, except perhaps Geometry, Politics/Government, Theology, and Philosophy.


My thoughts on simulating applied research vs. traditional tech tree research. Borrow from GALCIV, which has applied science disquised in the "anomaly" exploration. They are equivalent to Goody Huts, except you don't get new techs, just percentage points of improvements in miscellaneous areas of your civ---e.g. population growth rate, happiness, etc...

The same idea could be applied to technology research. Every so many Beakers, you generate a tech. Most of the time, the tech is just a percentage point reward. Occasionally, the tech is a lead (randomally generated, but consistent with the tech tree flow-path), that lets your Civ start pursuing a "broad, tech" (basically the traditional tech research), which the player can refuse or follow (funding by beakers as normal).

Advantages:
Fully blind, still follows tech tree logic of pre-requisites, adds challenge (you'll have to adapt your strategy to what techs you're offered), probably better simulates research and discovery as it really happened, personalizes your Civ (each Civ will research unique "percentages", giving untradeable characteristics to your civ), this would also simulate progress while limiting tech-tree cruising (no more 1000AD railroads), discovering a new tech will actually be fun (rarer).
Also, perhaps the Scientific Leaders can be introduced then as the source of new, broad techs. Would they then be built? Also, developing a true research infrastructure (at least by late medieval) would give the Civ the ability to due the traditional, broad tech tree research.


Disadvantages---will require lots of play-balancing to compare the relative research benefits. E.g. how many +% to population growth rate, equal upgrading the armor on your spearman +1, and for what beaker costs?


Examples of GALCIV accumulatable percentages:
+% morale,
+%pop growth,
+%offensive unit strength
+%industry
+%tax revenue
basically any and everything by usually +1 to +3.
etc.....

CIV's versions of percentage bonuses would have to be translated from CIV game concepts,
e.g. War Weariness,

But new ones could be invented to give Civ's personality.
E.g. +% monotheism,
+% agriculture production,
+% bonus for horse resources,
Pretty much anything on the trivial, to prevent this idea of research from dramatically unbalancing the game.



Lame / Good idea?

 

[dh_epic]

Schwick,

I've been thinking a lot about that idea but I'm a little stumped on details.

Really, I'd see pulling apart the tech tree into two systems. One for technology, one for social progress. The technology tree would work as before.

But the social progress wouldn't be a tree so much as a map. You start as a simple tribal society. Then you invent notions of religion or law or beurocracy. The key is, though, that there would be two steps. You'd invent a religious idea, and then decide whether to embrace it. To use the map analogy, you spend X amount of turns exploring the social map, and then Y amount of terms deciding if you want to settle that part of the social map.

The key, of course, is that discovering some social concepts will depend on the discovery of others. You wouldn't be able to discover Fundamentalism until you discovered Nationalism. But it does not mean that you'd be Nationalist first then Fundamentalist. It only means "we understand Nationalism and suggest Fundamentalism as an alternative. We choose Fundamentalism, in spite of Nationalism."

There are other advantages to go through. Like replacing the government-anarchy system with something more natural. You've discovered Democracy and Fascism. To get to Fascism, you'd have to add "police state" or "syndicalism" to the concepts you have embraced. So after you've moved through police state and syndicalism, you can finally switch from Democracy to Fascism.

Maybe I should draw this somehow.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually I like the map analogy a lot, it could even explain social similairty between different civs. Suppose you had a giant 'social map', and you get a new 'social settler' ever so many turns. It takes so many turns for these social settlers to reach their new destination, based on where you were previously. Also, settlers from multiple civs can settle in the same location on the map. THen you have similairty and same sharing with more influence going to the originator.

 

[dh_epic]

Well, I don't mean that they should literally have use settlers. Although, come to think of it, it IS kind of a neat little mini-game idea.

Just that there's really two phases. Exploration, and settling. Or, to use your terms, discovery, and application. For example, I think it's safe to say that many countries in the middle east have discovered Democracy. But for them to apply it, many are not interested. They do not want godless western capitalism. They see divorce rates through the roof with women's liberation. They see a new kind of exploitation on a global scale. Others don't apply it not because they're ideologically opposed to it, but because their leaders prefer to stay in complete control. The application, then, of Democracy would take some energy.

You explore to find democracy.
And if you want it, you have to settle it and build it up.
Or you can explore to find democracy, and then find fundamentalism right after (a little further along than Democracy), and settle there instead.

 

[sir_schwick]

Yeah, I did not mean literal settlers either. It is just a paradigm everyone on this site would understand. It could also be used to explain similairity between culture. If you compare two culture's maps, there would be some areas that both have settled, some both have seen, and some only one or the other have seen. Very different maps would make cooperation hard, since it would be hard to even find things both have seen before.

 

[GoodGame]

I think the mini-game concept is getting too abstract.

 

[sir_schwick]

Its not a mini-game, and there are no physical settlers. Imagine it is like researching techs instead. Every X turns you get to do two things; A) explore a concept, B) cultivate a concept. Exploring a concept will allow you to cultivate it in the future and give you the chance to explore concepts that are linked to it. Cultivating a concept makes it a permanent part of your culture.

So you could explore 'basic theology' which would allow you to later explore 'absolute theocracy', 'divine mandate', 'basic ethics', etc.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, the settler thing is more like a metaphor.

You spend X amount of turns and resources researching a social movement.
And then you spend X amount of turns and resources applying it.

In fact, you could probably do the two things in parallel.

This is akin to exploring / settling, or expanding / building. You try to balance the need to discover and stretch out, with the need to apply and build up.

 

[GoodGame]

My bad (skim-reading).

I've seen this in GALCIV.

The base techs are "Theory" techs with no definitive advantage. Ok idea but kind of a waste of game time.

I like the basic idea you have of 'feeling' out new techs before researching them, but without getting to choose which one you get a feel. "Feeling" up the tech tree would cost some beakers, but not on the level of a tech (10% or less).

I'd make it that you have to then research the tech you 'felt', or else discard the 'feeling'. But maybe for interest, store one 'feeling' while pursuing another tech, but only one!

I'd always prefer to get something for even just feeling---like some percentage bonuses like I originally suggested. Perhaps a compromise: the 'feel' of the tech would determine which kind of bonus the Civ received if it didn't pursue that tech.

sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels

sir_schwick's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,586

Its not a mini-game, and there are no physical settlers. Imagine it is like researching techs instead. Every X turns you get to do two things; A) explore a concept, B) cultivate a concept. Exploring a concept will allow you to cultivate it in the future and give you the chance to explore concepts that are linked to it. Cultivating a concept makes it a permanent part of your culture.

So you could explore 'basic theology' which would allow you to later explore 'absolute theocracy', 'divine mandate', 'basic ethics', etc.

 

[dh_epic]

You know, I think the "intermediate" techs with no benefit are kind of an interesting one. Maybe they could offer bonuses. But the key is that you choose these intermediate techs so as to determine a slight path in an otherwise maze of a tech tree.

You choose the Democratic version, which gives you a boost to morale and science... or you choose the Militaristic version, which gives you a boost to stability and might. E.g.: You could take the path where the subjects start criticizing their king, thus making your nation very progressive, or you can take the path where the king consolidates his power around a strong military, which makes them strong but conservative. This would be represented by a crossroads -- pick "Humanism" or "Populism" for the Democratic route, or "Totalitarianism" or "Tyrrany" or even "Castle Fortification" for the military route. The two are mutually exclusive, but still ultimately converge down the road in the industrial age.

 

[GoodGame]

dh_epic,

Exactly!