Playing Style Effect Tech Tree

[The Omega]

One time I was playing civ, the world was extremely peaceful, except for a single, isolated war, yet I was researching modern armor and nuclear weapons. I started to wonder, if there was only a single war in the entire world, would people really have developed this stuff? I think that what happens in the game should effect how your tech tree is developed, and maybe effect other things.

 

[sir_schwick]

Good in theory, but how do you implement it. One system may be that branches of the tech tree can only be started if triggers are activated. The first con I see to that is player manipulation.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Simple. Get rid of the Age system and create a single unified tech tree. Then, you don't have to research the purely military techs if you don't need to (although you'd still see some troop advancement; every technology short of perinnial gardening has been used for military purposes).

 

[Colonel]

i liked the civ2 model of tech where you could get through alot of the modern age without devolping military tech past chivalray-spell wrong-

A little add on to the orginal idea- If you were to be constantly at war you would get a bonus in warfare tech which would be marked as warfare techs
and same for the other way if you are peace alot of the time you would get a tech bonus for peaceful techs

Not alot of a bonus maybe shed a turn or two off each tech

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

As I have specified elsewhere, the solution is to remove 'directional' tech research and replace it with a 'semi-directional' method i.e. where you invest resources into a broad category of research, such as military, scientific, religious/cultural etc! Then in a world with no wars, you might end up putting much less resources into military techs and instead funneling it into industrial and agricultural techs.
The second this to do is to make your civs characteristics evolve according to gameplay. So a militaristic civ which played a quiet, builder game style might find themselves losing Militaristic in favour of Industrial! Your civ characteristics would, in turn, have some effect on the speed at which you research the relevent tech fields.
If this method were applied, then the tech tree would need to be expanded AND the existing 'age prerequisite vs. non-age prerequisite' techs would have to be dropped in favour of a broader 'minimum techs required for age advancement' system-if that makes any sense! Perhaps you need a minimum # of techs in each of fields relating to your two characteristics in order to progress to the next age-for instance, a Commercial/religious civ might require 5 commercial and 5 cultural/religious techs, in the ancient age, in order to advance to the next age!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I think we should go back to 'Blind Reserach" and the categories are a little bit less abstract than in SMAC. THis time its military, commercial, religious, etc. I think all you would need is a core set of foundations, set up in a way that you could spike in one kind of reserach way ahead of the relative era of the others, but not three or four eras ahead.

 

[rhialto]

I think democratic style govs should be blind, but autocrats should be able t direct research.

 

[sir_schwick]

New research model I just had thought:

Most research is commerical, but you can 'subsidize' private research to speed it up. Thus you decide what current technologies that are being researched by cities to put your beakers into. Each city would produce beakers relative to facilities, size, and some other factors into techs they thought they needed. Cities that were growing fast or large would invest in directions toward solving unhappiness, city limits. Cities that were near high-potential-shield tiles would want to invest in production improving techs, if avalaible in the era. Cities near an enemy or enemy culture border would invest in military techs or culutral techs respectively. Then you just decide where the research portion of taxes go.

 

[dh_epic]

I do think that automating research to some degree, particularly in modern or democratic societies, is a good idea. So long as the automation comes with a speed advantage, and the manual Fascist tweaking comes with a control advantage.

(As it stands now, automation has no advantage, and playing like a Fascist can let you be more efficient and faster than your society, AND giving you the control advantage.)

 

[sir_schwick]

This would apply to all societies, or Totalitarian political systems would not generate local reserach, only national. THis means democratic societies generate more reserach, but some is spread out. Over time you may inherit research you never looked into, by sheer amount of side-ways reserach.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

What about these ideas: every civ has afaik still traits (maybe dependend on the leader you take) What if there is one tech per age available only for a specific trait which gives you an advantage in the same field as the trait (stronger units for militaristic players, naval units and commercial dock for seafaring... you got the point). These techs would be not tradeable (even not if the other civ has the same trait) and you have to research it in order to advance. I know these boni would have to be balanced which could be difficult, but this would make the trait even more effect your playstyle and some traits (expansionistccomes to my mind) are useful after the first 50 turns... The tech pace would be slowed down and the tree would be unique for every civ.

 

[dh_epic]

I think it would be neat if techs were "bought" like they are in an RTS like warcraft. E.g.: you research "Arrows" for 100 lumber and 50 gold. The idea being that they have more complex requirements.

That way certain techs, even certain paths could be rewarded by a playstyle. It's not just who generates the most beakers, but who generates the most *everything*.

E.g.: you research artillery for 300 beakers, 20 rocks of iron... and 10 enemy deaths?

The key being, too, that nations who wanted to find an alternate but more expensive path to a tech could trade for those needs on the open market. I don't have 20 rocks of iron, but maybe if I give up 40 spices I could get the iron I need.

(The whole 10 enemy deaths thing, I think the heart's in the right place, but the execution is off. I dunno, still sketchy in my mind. But throwing it out there, as food for thought.)

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Techs are already bought with commerce. Maybe you could also need some shields or corn, but the current system of resources can not provide the research you have in mind. Needing access to strategic resources to research a tech would be highly unbalancing, imo. And triggers like 10 deaths for a tech would be nearly impossible to handle for the AI at the current state (we all hope the best for civ4)

Anyhow in my opinion tech and playstyle should depend more on your civtraits

 

[nothing here]

I've got an idea lads.

Say you've gotten the basic techs at start. The only way to really advance aside from assigning researchers is to have your people aquaint themselves with different elements of advancement.
Yar..... you sent out yer peoples to work for ya. Then burden the basterds with elementary output execution. Let me tell ya humbly. You discover connection, say, bonded materials. You can then study the in reach and all to obvious paths of science. Like physics for example. On a beginning or primitive manner if you will. Might I be so bold as to invite a possibility of suggesting that the game might be a bee linning specified and tailorable application of execution. You may beeline through named science thus leaden up to branched specified advances. Every age brings about further uptunes to already existing advances in the cataogories of physics, biology, alchemy/chemistry, astronomy, geology/geography and philosophy/theory.
For example(construction may be improved upon with further research in physics and geology/geography. And the next named advances are reached at certain levels of knowledge in such feilds as the nation and common ones grow and flourish.)

Another idea lads is that yer wanna advance in metal worken, say iron worken, then yer citizens gatheren can advance in certain ways, as can yer iron workers with there craften and maken. and then yer consumers can learn lttile extras on there business matters with such fine materials yer workers are bringen and craften. Yar, thats one hit on the broadside if yer ask me.
Yar, tis goes like thes, yer first gonna come about advances by introduction. Then yer can teach it to the commons ones. When yer rollen and can build educational facilities. Yer can raise feild scientists and instructen ones. And further more, things may happen lads. As yer young minded ones grow, they may automatically implement national improving wheter it be builden, gatheren resources, fighten and dieyen, or teachen others. In turn lads, they may also object to your rule and spread unhappyness based on things yer not doein so well. Anyways, as I was sayen.
Heirgo you may further yer advances as you please as so research new little tricks as well. All in good time and at the same time ofcourse.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, though I don't think that lack of a resource should PREVENT you from obtaining a tech, I DEFINITELY think that having a resource should give you a bonus to researching a tech related to the USE of that resource!
So, for instance, iron would give a bonus to researching 'iron working', 'metallurgy', 'magnetism' and 'steel', to name just a few!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[CivEconomist]

Sometimes its the development of these weapons during peace time that keeps the wars that might trigger select technologies from happening.

 

[nothing here]

OK, though I don't think that lack of a resource should PREVENT you from obtaining a tech, I DEFINITELY think that having a resource should give you a bonus to researching a tech related to the USE of that resource!
So, for instance, iron would give a bonus to researching 'iron working', 'metallurgy', 'magnetism' and 'steel', to name just a few!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Yarrs, then yers better not be a hipocrit, posten anything along the lines of realism to trade or material values and freedoms or restraints without thinken of that code, boy.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, what Aussie said. It's not so much that people without a resource would be prohibited from it, but having resources or other qualifying milestones would give you quicker access.

That and having a tech web more than a tree -- multiple divergent directions.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

Strategical resources should influence building units, rails, buildings (nuclear power plants) AND the cost of a tech? Can you imagine how unbalancing that is? Lacking iron prevents you from building certain units and should make related techs (~5 I think) more expensive, as lacking oil would make 5-6 techs in industrial ages more expensive. You are already ****ed up with the current system if you don´t have a resource, even more when research is also influenced by it, imo. I would even go one step back and make units just more expensive if you lack the resource and let it not affect the price of a tech.

 

[dh_epic]

You're assuming that we'd want resources to be exactly the same as it was in Civ 3.

First of all, I would envision more supplies of resources.
Secondly, I would envision a greater variety of resources.
Thirdly, I would envision a greater interdependence between nations, where no nation can get ahead without at least one or two solid allies with access to alternative resources.

These would not only make the game more realistic, but more strategically interesting. Give the player more interesting choices than "where do I build my cities".

If you do that, then there's no doubt that resources would NEED to change hands, nobody would be able to get ahead without good trade techniques. And there would be a great enough variety of resources that nobody would be shut out (having no resources), nor would anyone be able to monopolize them (having everything they need).

Everybody needs somebody sometimes, so they say.