Remake Science History.

[rysmiel]

Why don't you express yourself clearly for a change?

I am trying here,

Because it does not why you especially want means it is a bad idea? Or do you mean that what you want is incompatible with what i want?
In my idea, techs discovered by the "surrounding", aka other civilizations, would be exeptionnally selectable. Now that's an input, premise or data.

Granted.

But that does not change that allowing Gunpowder with iron Working is a change to the underlying process of a tech tree refelcting the general course of technological development as it happened.

Or do you mean that the player could not adapt to its surroundings and start loc if blind research is on?

Certainly not so well as the player could if they had free choice over what tech to research next, yes. That's part of my point.

Maybe you want more choice for Civ5, but it's not a reason to be HERMETIC to my ideas. You could still have many choices from already discovered techs.

I'm not getting your point here. My point, insofar as I have one, is that I think that the Civ 4 tech tree is too small and coarse-grained, but that I do not think being able to jump ahead through it to get - for example - Gunpowder in the ancient era, as you suggested, is a good solution.

 

[rysmiel]

So you may enlight me about what he is saying.

I continue not to be a "he".

 

[Naokaukodem]

But that does not change that allowing Gunpowder with iron Working is a change to the underlying process of a tech tree refelcting the general course of technological development as it happened.

That's just all the point of it.

Certainly not so well as the player could if they had free choice over what tech to research next, yes. That's part of my point.

I can see it's only your whole point. By the way, with my system (half-blind), you would still have the ability to choose from already discovered techs (by another civilization)

I'm not getting your point here. My point, insofar as I have one, is that I think that the Civ 4 tech tree is too small and coarse-grained, but that I do not think being able to jump ahead through it to get - for example - Gunpowder in the ancient era, as you suggested, is a good solution.

Well those two issues are very different, and have nothing in common. You could as well have a big and detailled tech tree with half-blind research.

I continue not to be a "he".

You could as well be a shemale but i would continue to name you "he".

 

[rysmiel]

I can see it's only your whole point. By the way, with my system (half-blind), you would still have the ability to choose from already discovered techs (by another civilization)

I don't think this helps.

I understand the point of being able to get techs that someone else has already researched more cheaply.

What research not entirely under the player's control destroys is a whole level of strategic thinking involving techs other civs do not have yet. Of looking at what techs your neighbours have developed (and, depending on how espionage is implemented, are researching) and planning what tech you research next accordingly. Of picking a tech to research knowing that you will be first to it and can sell it for loads of money. Of being first to a tech so you are first to see where a resource is and can claim it before anyone else realises it's important. Of giving someone a technology to direct their research towards another technology you can then buy back from them. Of giving somebody a technology they have almost researched themselves so that they lose the overflow of research and have to start from scratch with their next tech. Of giving somebody who is racing you for Wonder A that you really want a technology that would let them build Wonder B, that is of more use to them, instead. Of giving an economically struggling Monarchy a gift of Republic or Democracy so that they will change government type to one that makes their economy stronger but makes them less good at fighting a war, as a precursor to invading them (Yes, I know some of these do not work in the Civ 4 model.) Is that enough concrete objections to a blind or half-blind research model to be going on with ?

 

[Shackel]

Basically, she was saying that she was okay with things that were unrealistic(Landlocked Vikings), and would be just as happy if the civs did not have the original culture still tacked on to them.

Oh, and the tree would actually be about five or six separate trees, each one having a different subject(Land, Air, Sea, Money, Production, Pleasure(Happiness and Health techs)). Different tiles give different types of beakers, leaving something where if you have a city on an island, most of your tech would end up land and money-based.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I understand the point of being able to get techs that someone else has already researched more cheaply.

Fission was not cheaper for France once America discovered it. French people just knew what to research and in what direction to go, what would be reflected in a half-blind tech tree.

Of looking at what techs your neighbours have developed (and, depending on how espionage is implemented, are researching) and planning what tech you research next accordingly.

That would be easier to do with half-blind research. Just select the tech "?" and you surely would fall on a undiscovered tech.

Of picking a tech to research knowing that you will be first to it and can sell it for loads of money.

Same remark here. If you choose the tech "?", you may be the first to discover a random new tech and be able to trade it.

Of being first to a tech so you are first to see where a resource is and can claim it before anyone else realises it's important.

That would still be possible to a degree by selecting "?" tech and hoping to hit a "military" tech. Plus, this way of proceed would be infinitely more realistic, because never anyone decided "let's research x tech in order to invade X civ!". [EDIT]hug, precisely except if it has already been discovered[/EDIT]

Of giving someone a technology to direct their research towards another technology you can then buy back from them.

Of giving somebody a technology they have almost researched themselves so that they lose the overflow of research and have to start from scratch with their next tech.

That, is just micromanagement and is a reason why I would see tech trade to be nullified in civ5, or become automatic (and maybe also "organic") in some way. More, I don't even know if this really works with Civ4 AIs. Do they really take no account of the advancement of their current researching tech in order to trade it? I'm not sure about it.

Of giving somebody who is racing you for Wonder A that you really want a technology that would let them build Wonder B, that is of more use to them, instead.

Now that is far-fetched! I never thought about doing such a thing, and do not even know if that works. If it works, it could as well not work anymore in Civ5, as I perceive this as an AI abuse. Call it strategy if you like!

Of giving an economically struggling Monarchy a gift of Republic or Democracy so that they will change government type to one that makes their economy stronger but makes them less good at fighting a war, as a precursor to invading them (Yes, I know some of these do not work in the Civ 4 model.)

As you say, this probably does not work in Civ4. Beyond the fact that is far-fetched and AI abuse, I see no reason for an AI to change its governement in Democracy if they need the Monarchy happiness boost, the more when they keep in each city an equal number of troops.

So no, you absolutely did not convinced me that so much "strategy" derive from a totally visible tech tree.

For the crumb of strategy that derive from a visible tech, I would happily switch for a half-blind tech tree for the sake of realism and History re-writing.

 

[Shackel]

Nao, you seem to be putting everything into this "Realism > Gameplay" idea. This would cause the amount of strategy in the tech tree to dive.

I would probably not buy Civ5 if I found out I had to just had to randomly pick a tech "out of a bag", because the ENTIRE game would be based on LUCK.

Someone could get ALL of the military techs randomly, or I could get NONE of the things that I need.

Gameplay > Realism.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Basically, she was saying that she was okay with things that were unrealistic(Landlocked Vikings), and would be just as happy if the civs did not have the original culture still tacked on to them.

I understood that, but was not seeing the point of his other sentences.

Oh, and the tree would actually be about five or six separate trees, each one having a different subject(Land, Air, Sea, Money, Production, Pleasure(Happiness and Health techs)). Different tiles give different types of beakers, leaving something where if you have a city on an island, most of your tech would end up land and money-based.

In my idea of tech research rate defined by communications (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184244), I imagined two tech trees: one for civic techs, one for all the other. If you started in an island, instead of concentrating on various techs, you could choose to concentrate on civic techs in order to increase greatly your cities efficiency. this way, your relatively small number of cities would be compensated by their efficiency, the number of gold and research they have. you would have super cities when the other civs in a continent would have low efficiency cities but more numerous and particularly, military advancement that help them to treat with other civs.

 

[Camikaze]

Gameplay > Realism.

Realism = Good gameplay.

Having said that, however, random acquisition of technologies isn't all that realistic, IMHO.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Nao, you seem to be putting everything into this "Realism > Gameplay" idea. This would cause the amount of strategy in the tech tree to dive.

I would probably not buy Civ5 if I found out I had to just had to randomly pick a tech "out of a bag", because the ENTIRE game would be based on LUCK.

Someone could get ALL of the military techs randomly, or I could get NONE of the things that I need.

Gameplay > Realism.

You underestimate the potential strategy there is to choose from an unknown tech and an already known with good potential one. Plus, that would make units upgrade more important, that would reinforce an already existing feature.

And not so soon, you were pleased by the idea, so I wonder if you are a little too much suggestible.

Reality, by its infinite complexity, is as a source of inspiration, not a finallity. It's not about to simulate very exactly the world, but to emulate it in a way that is satyfying for the ego.

As you see, realism is not the finallity of my idea, because precisely, it would make the History different. It can be a random argument against other one though, occasionnally, but in no way the justification of my whole idea.

 

[rysmiel]

That would be easier to do with half-blind research. Just select the tech "?" and you surely would fall on a undiscovered tech.

Not necessarily the undiscovered tech you want. Take an early game example; if both the neighbours you know about have Bronze Working and look like Iron Working would be a reasonable thing for them to research next, you randomly getting Iron Working to research next is something that then becomes a race between you and them. You choosing to research Literacy, which neither of them are next to getting, is something you could be more sure is worth the investment for selling to them.

Same remark here. If you choose the tech "?", you may be the first to discover a random new tech and be able to trade it.

And the words I object to there are "may" and "random". You are removing the strategic value of being able to plan to get specific techs. There's no way in your system to aim for a specific tech two or three down the tree from where you are or for any strategy based on that, if it's just a gamble every time you pick the next tech.

That would still be possible to a degree by selecting "?" tech and hoping to hit a "military" tech.

Again, "hoping". Not actually strategic planning, just "hoping". This is not fun.

Plus, this way of proceed would be infinitely more realistic, because never anyone decided "let's research x tech in order to invade X civ!".

And if your value of realism excludes that aspect of gameplay, then it's actively harming the game.

That, is just micromanagement

Paying close attention to your enemies in order to deal with them in ways that benefit you as much as possible is "micromanagement" ?

and is a reason why I would see tech trade to be nullified in civ5,

If you don't particularly like that aspect fo the game, fine; I do not think anything forces you to it in any existing version of Civ. But removing it would harm an aspect of the game that I enjoy, and not, that I can see, provid any compensatory benefit.

Now that is far-fetched! I never thought about doing such a thing, and do not even know if that works. If it works, it could as well not work anymore in Civ5, as I perceive this as an AI abuse. Call it strategy if you like!
As you say, this probably does not work in Civ4. Beyond the fact that is far-fetched and AI abuse,

If you want to dismiss all forms of the diplomatic manipulation side of the game as "AI abuse", that really does feel to me like completely blanking out one of the most important strategic elements.

Me, I want diplomatic agreements that co-ordinate research. I want to be able to agree with an ally to research Steel while they research Refining and then swap in five turns' time. I want a condition of making a peace treaty with someone to be to tell them what they have to research next.

I see no reason for an AI to change its governement in Democracy if they need the Monarchy happiness boost, the more when they keep in each city an equal number of troops.

It's a Civ 3 sort of strategy, but then I'm still hoping for fixed governments to come back; the point is, republics and democracy make a lot more money than monarchies, at the disadvantage of being less good at war, so inducing someone to switch government prior to a surprise attack if it can be done is a very good thing.

 

[rysmiel]

imagined two tech trees: one for civic techs, one for all the other. If you started in an island, instead of concentrating on various techs, you could choose to concentrate on civic techs in order to increase greatly your cities efficiency. this way, your relatively small number of cities would be compensated by their efficiency, the number of gold and research they have. you would have super cities when the other civs in a continent would have low efficiency cities but more numerous and particularly, military advancement that help them to treat with other civs.

I still see no benefit at all to doing this as two trees rather than one tree with more-or-less separate lines of development.

 

[rysmiel]

Realism = Good gameplay.

Just how realistic do you think the logistical management of a D-Day type invasion should be, then ? Even I don't want my games that long, because I do want to finish more than one in my lifetime.

 

[Shackel]

Realism = Good Gameplay? Even that has it's limits.

Also, Nao, I do not think that your attempts at saying that I am too easily swayed is not going to help your own opinion, nor will it help other people's image of you.

Random techs, once again, runs into the "Entire game being luck-based".

You COULD end up with an entirely religious world, when you want to DESTROY things. In fact, I think it'd be easy to just slap a "?" sign on all of the technologies in Civ4.

All I had to do was imagine it like that, and it soon became "What's the point in trying". Not only would being surrounded by forests require an instant regen, but just about EVERYTHING requiring a beeline would be an instant regeneration, if not an extremely frustrating time trying to get to "[insert essential tech here]".

Axe Rushes would just become a factor of luck. In Multiplayer, the "Random Tech" would become DISASTROUS, as the first person to get Bronze would have a HUGE safety cushion between them in the competition, IF they can survive the next 20 turns.

Oh, and Liberalism would just be a slap to the face, as it would be a waste of a tech, because you just get ANOTHER TECH, and even worse would be the probably large chance that it will end up a tech that cost LESS.

By the way, my idea was COMPLETELY different, with 5-6 branches of technology, yet working quite simply, as it was just based on the tiles around you.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, yeah, sure, complete realism doesn't make for good gameplay, but as a general rule, a better degree of realism does.

 

[Shackel]

However, did civilizations just research "?" without knowing a thing about where they were going?

No.

If anything, the entire world was researching just about EVERY tech at the same time with ranging amounts of beakers.

 

[Camikaze]

Realism = Good gameplay.

Having said that, however, random acquisition of technologies isn't all that realistic, IMHO.

To quote myself.

 

[Shackel]

Touche, Cami.

Touche.

I think that this tech tree would be alright, until they can manage to make multiple trees without it being too overwhelming.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Not necessarily the undiscovered tech you want. Take an early game example; if both the neighbours you know about have Bronze Working and look like Iron Working would be a reasonable thing for them to research next, you randomly getting Iron Working to research next is something that then becomes a race between you and them. You choosing to research Literacy, which neither of them are next to getting, is something you could be more sure is worth the investment for selling to them.

That is, IMO, exploiting the AI: to be sure that it won't reach some particular tech before you so you can trade it to them. It reminds me my first Emperor win, when the AI was reaching the Infantry tech when it didn't even have Rifles. I could wipe it out with my trebuchets easily, and i won a Domination victory, when if they would have searched Rifles i couldn't do that. Use such processes is just exploiting the AI.

Plus, I fail to see a groundbreaking strategy in that; why not only search the techs you directly need? And if you want to trade to the AI, why not serach a tech that is very usefull to you AND that the AI do not have in the same time?

Finally, I am not fond at all of tech trading with the AI. I would want it to disappear or become automatic in some way, because looking at AI techs every turn is boring.

And the words I object to there are "may" and "random". You are removing the strategic value of being able to plan to get specific techs. There's no way in your system to aim for a specific tech two or three down the tree from where you are or for any strategy based on that, if it's just a gamble every time you pick the next tech.

It would still be possible to do it if your opponents discovered them. By the way, being able to choose early what later techs we want is not realistic at all. And as we pretty always choose the same path every game, I think a little variation each game could help. If you want a groundbreaking military tech for exemple, you just have to maximize your research so you may multiple you chances of having it. And maximimzing yuor research is strategy.

Again, "hoping". Not actually strategic planning, just "hoping". This is not fun.

Honestly, I fail to see that much strategy in tech choice. And hoping is way more fun than directing, because when you fall on an interesting tech, it gives you this feeling of novelty that I personnally lack greatly from Civ2.

Paying close attention to your enemies in order to deal with them in ways that benefit you as much as possible is "micromanagement" ?

Exactly. I don't want to check every turn, if I have this possibility, the advancement of all civs around me. And as espionnage is not always active, that would make it null by the way.

If you don't particularly like that aspect fo the game, fine; I do not think anything forces you to it in any existing version of Civ. But removing it would harm an aspect of the game that I enjoy, and not, that I can see, provid any compensatory benefit.

Tech trade annoys me greatly. In higher difficulty level, AI trades you with a disadvantage. When AIs meet, they trade tech with a high tolerance, what make them pretty the same in tech advancement. I hate that. When you must be very lucky to do the same with AI (trade one only tech with all the AIs), because most of them simply won't want to do it. I feel tech trade is very desavantageous, and it would not upset me if it was not a so important weight in the game balance.

If you want to dismiss all forms of the diplomatic manipulation side of the game as "AI abuse", that really does feel to me like completely blanking out one of the most important strategic elements.

You call it "strategy" with all the big words and all, what amuses me sorta, and I see them only as mean exploits. That's it.

Me, I want diplomatic agreements that co-ordinate research. I want to be able to agree with an ally to research Steel while they research Refining and then swap in five turns' time. I want a condition of making a peace treaty with someone to be to tell them what they have to research next.

As I can see it that could make tech trade more handy, less annnoying, but that would also make it way too easy. Well, at least it should spare the annoying question and answering (searsh) of "what tech the AI have, what the AI is now researching for, what tech it doesn't have should I research", what is really a pain IMO.

It's a Civ 3 sort of strategy, but then I'm still hoping for fixed governments to come back; the point is, republics and democracy make a lot more money than monarchies, at the disadvantage of being less good at war, so inducing someone to switch government prior to a surprise attack if it can be done is a very good thing.

And if the AI changes it it would mean an exploit. To me, that is not strategy, this is only human malignancy, the same malignancy that leads to capitalizing on exploits. It is not my cup of tea at all.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I still see no benefit at all to doing this as two trees rather than one tree with more-or-less separate lines of development.

Well it had a purpose in my idea as common techs discovery was based on contacts, and old-Civ-fashion tech advancement was for civics.

Realism = Good Gameplay? Even that has it's limits.

Also, Nao, I do not think that your attempts at saying that I am too easily swayed is not going to help your own opinion, nor will it help other people's image of you.

I still think it.

Random techs, once again, runs into the "Entire game being luck-based".

No. As said above, allocating research is a part of Civ strategy. Plus, already discovered techs by other civilizations would be selectable.

You COULD end up with an entirely religious world, when you want to DESTROY things. In fact, I think it'd be easy to just slap a "?" sign on all of the technologies in Civ4.

Religious techs, if based on Civ4 tech tree, could be very usefull also, especially if you discover them first. And it's not like if Civ5 you would have only religious techs to discover.

All I had to do was imagine it like that, and it soon became "What's the point in trying". Not only would being surrounded by forests require an instant regen, but just about EVERYTHING requiring a beeline would be an instant regeneration, if not an extremely frustrating time trying to get to "[insert essential tech here]".

Funny how you did change your opinion so easily. And now I learn that you didn't even do the effort to imagine my idea. Tell me: what's the point of your presence here?

Axe Rushes would just become a factor of luck. In Multiplayer, the "Random Tech" would become DISASTROUS, as the first person to get Bronze would have a HUGE safety cushion between them in the competition, IF they can survive the next 20 turns.

Axe rushed could become a factor of luck, indeed. But it would be to the other players to jump on this tech like lions, when resiting with weaker units, like Archers for example. In multiplayer that could be weird, granted, but not if losing a part of our territory becomes a common thing, as I descibed it in other ideas like rebellions.

Oh, and Liberalism would just be a slap to the face, as it would be a waste of a tech, because you just get ANOTHER TECH

LOL, isn't that the point of Liberalism?

and even worse would be the probably large chance that it will end up a tech that cost LESS.

that's life! Or game.

By the way, my idea was COMPLETELY different, with 5-6 branches of technology, yet working quite simply, as it was just based on the tiles around you.

I don't remember precisely, but I think that Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri has the thing you want.

However, did civilizations just research "?" without knowing a thing about where they were going?

No.

Yes. Do you think prehistoric men knew that Bronze Working existed before they discovered it? No. Tech advancement in all actual Civ games is only an interface in order to represent the fact that the player is managing a whole civilization. It just gives him control on things that are not relevant of human will.

If anything, the entire world was researching just about EVERY tech at the same time with ranging amounts of beakers.

And they finally discovered a new tech at a certain and honest time. Just like my system.

Just how realistic do you think the logistical management of a D-Day type invasion should be, then ? Even I don't want my games that long, because I do want to finish more than one in my lifetime.

Most of logistical management ideas are . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Contraignant and not fun at all, incompatible with what is Civ.

Moderator Action: Language-warned
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889