Remake Science History.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Now, I like the idea, but I think it may end up hard to implement within the game. The whole "Shot in the dark" idea may ruin some of the strategy involved in trying to get certain techs(Your economy going down? Get Currency. Already have it? Try Banking. Get it?).

Maybe, and this is a pretty long shot, there could be entirely different tech trees(Land, Sea, Air, Economic, Building(mandatory late game), and Science(mandatory late game).

This would kind of bring in the whole "Why would a entirely land locked civilization want to learn how to create a battleship?", or "Why would someone in the desert want to learn how to live in the Arctic(Biology, maybe)?".
 
They may not have a degree in History (for what you know! :lol: ) but they are certainly very awared of History, their knowledge is huge.
Yet they managed to place the Danish pagan Ragnar Lodbrok in front of a Norwegian stave church...;)

Although I like this idea somewhat, I don't think it would work very well. Let's take your example of discovering steam power in the Classical age, bt not having the iron tools and techniques to fully utilise it. If so, the player would make sure his Civ also discovered these utensiles, and you have made a new tech tree where steam power comes much earlier. If the AI is not smart enough to do this, the player merely has a new tool to beat the computer. Some of these problems could be solved with (partially) random research, but that can never be a core rule as the game also needs to be competitive for multiplayer, HoF etc...
 
I'm for a remake (or enhancement) of tech... but I just don't this idea will actually work because of balance and logic... It could seriously screw the game up if 1 side gets a tech early which gives it a major advantage. OK if you want this feature, just make it toggleable!
 
Robotics and Astronomy are submitted to machines/tools that have been build on the basis of another machines/tools.

And the respective tools/machines would be Computers and Optical equipment. I mean, I understand that a set of tools could be developed in a different way so as to add some slight variation to the tech tree, but the idea behind prerequisites is that they are the tools and machines required for the technology. Doing otherwise would be literally like reinventing the wheel.

Edit: I also found the following, which seems to be relevant to this thread;
Blind Research, Corlindale, 16/10/05
 
So at least there is 1 guy who understood me. What is Science of the Discworld 3: Darwins Watch? I know Discword by Pratchett, although i never read any of his books.

Science of the Discworld is a series of books where Pratchett has some of his Discworld characters create "Roundworld" (Earth), then find out it works on different rules to the Discworld (no magic for example). He co-authors this with 2 scientists, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen.

It pretty much breaks down as 1 chapter by Pratchett, then 1 by Stewart and Cohen to explain the story. Works nicely for the most part.


Anyway, they explore various concepts. SotD 3: Darwin's Watch is mostly aimed at biological evolution. However, one of the concepts they explore is that ideas/inventions/concepts only really work if the "time" is right.

Chapter 18 has them looking at steam engines. To summerise:

Steam engines have been used for motive power since around 150BC (at this time, Hero of Alexandria wrote "Spirtulia seu Pneumatica", only partial copies of which survive, but which clearly refers to multiple steam-driven machines.) Most of these uses appear to be of limited practicality (the only practical one referenced is a steam-driven door opener in a temple).

Yet for all this, it was 1663 when Edward Somerset, the Marquis of Worcester invented and built a steam-powered pump in Vauxhall. However, there wasn't any funding available to manufacture more machines by Somerset or, later, his widow.

Dennis Papin is credited with applying safety valves to control steam pressure (initially in his "Digester", a sort of primitive pressure cooker). He then went on to create the first mechanical steam engine and first piston engine around 1687.

Thomas Savery patented and built the first steam engine used to clear mines of unwanted water.

Thomas Newcomen created the "atmospheric steam engine", whereby he separated the piston and pump, and added a separate boiler and condenser. The separate piston meant that it would be attached to anything, making the engine more generally useful.

John Smeaton scaled Newcomen's design up to a larger scale.

This can be considered to be the time of the "invention" of the steam engine, yet it is Watt (and Boulton, his partner) who get most of the credit. All Watt did was change the method of operation slightly to dramatically improve the efficiency, yet once that change was made no-one else could compete.




So, as you can see, steam engines did exist and had some limited practical applications in antiquity.

However, it took some 1800 years from the first known recorded instance to the first acknowledged practical use.

It took a further 35 years for the engines to become commercially viable.

It took another 70 years to reach what can pretty much be considered it's "final" form - a total of some 1900 years (and probably more).

There's some things which aren't covered (possibly because they're uncertain). For example, they refer to 2 machines from Hero's treatise, both of which consist of fires being lit on altars which contain the water. A key development would have been building the boiler around the fire, but as I said, this isn't covered.



The point I'm making is that it isn't just tools that are required, it's also a use and economy.
 
Well, in real life, this would be like having every tech being researched at the same time, with a one beaker per turn.
 
This was my concept which I tried to get my own head around. I think it is in some ways similar to what you want Naokaukodem, I don't think you mean all technologies should all be randomly discovered, you would still have some prerequisites as people are saying, you can't have robotics without computers, or space flight without rocketry.
 
Now, I like the idea, but I think it may end up hard to implement within the game. The whole "Shot in the dark" idea may ruin some of the strategy involved in trying to get certain techs(Your economy going down? Get Currency. Already have it? Try Banking. Get it?).

Maybe, and this is a pretty long shot, there could be entirely different tech trees(Land, Sea, Air, Economic, Building(mandatory late game), and Science(mandatory late game).

This would kind of bring in the whole "Why would a entirely land locked civilization want to learn how to create a battleship?", or "Why would someone in the desert want to learn how to live in the Arctic(Biology, maybe)?".

Yes, it may ruin this strategy (though the most researched techs are military ones), but it would bring some others. Like for example, if another civ discovered a tech, it would appear on the tech tree. So, you would have the choice to search this tech, or look for another potential groundbreaking tech in the none of all the others undiscovered ones.

Although I like this idea somewhat, I don't think it would work very well. Let's take your example of discovering steam power in the Classical age, bt not having the iron tools and techniques to fully utilise it. If so, the player would make sure his Civ also discovered these utensiles, and you have made a new tech tree where steam power comes much earlier. If the AI is not smart enough to do this, the player merely has a new tool to beat the computer. Some of these problems could be solved with (partially) random research, but that can never be a core rule as the game also needs to be competitive for multiplayer, HoF etc...

Blind reasearch would be a condition sine qua non, I guess. And there would still be a tech tree, in the exception that it would be hidden and a lot more open. For example, this is not 6 or 7 techs that would be researchable at start, but 20, with 5% chance each to be hooked. When a neighbour civ, and only a neighbour civ, discovers a new tech, this last appears clearly on the tech tree, so the player can research it voluntarily.

I'm for a remake (or enhancement) of tech... but I just don't this idea will actually work because of balance and logic... It could seriously screw the game up if 1 side gets a tech early which gives it a major advantage. OK if you want this feature, just make it toggleable!

Such advantages would be nice and realistic. As I explain above, if your opponents discovered for example gunpowder in Antiquity (again i am not sure that it would be possible after the thinking of the developers), the technology would appear under the science panel. You would have then a high interest to develop this tech, so you could upgrade your units when invaded.

And the respective tools/machines would be Computers and Optical equipment. I mean, I understand that a set of tools could be developed in a different way so as to add some slight variation to the tech tree, but the idea behind prerequisites is that they are the tools and machines required for the technology. Doing otherwise would be literally like reinventing the wheel.

As I explained above, there would still be prerequisite, at the exception that they would be hidden. For example, if you have 5% chance to discover Bronze Working before any other civilization, and that you discover it, you may have 100/the number of total undiscovered AND available techs as a percentage of discovering Iron Working, if we are based on Civilization 4 tech tree.

The point I'm making is that it isn't just tools that are required, it's also a use and economy.

You may be right, although use and economy can change greatly from a world to another.

Well, in real life, this would be like having every tech being researched at the same time, with a one beaker per turn.

not really (see above).

This was my concept which I tried to get my own head around. I think it is in some ways similar to what you want Naokaukodem, I don't think you mean all technologies should all be randomly discovered, you would still have some prerequisites as people are saying, you can't have robotics without computers, or space flight without rocketry.

No, there would still be prerequisites, as said above, and now that i am thinking about it, Gunpowder would surely have Iron Working as prerequisite, at least.
 
What, perhaps, would be better, would be random discounting of technology, rather than outright discovery. As in, significant advances in technological research, without the actual unrealistic product at the end.
 
random discounting of technology

Discounting should not be random. It should be based on other civs discoveries, and distance from those civs. As to integrate discounting in my model, that would be emulated by the direct accessibility of already known techs.

The point of such a system (that is the topic of this thread), is not to emulate superiority of some army or culture, but to emulate the History of several different world, not Earth only.

without the actual unrealistic product at the end.

What is unrealistic, a tech tree based on Earth History only (Earth centrism) , or a tech tree based on several worlds?
 
A tech tree based on several alternate histories is not, as an idea, unrealistic. However, the implementation of it invariably would be; you would need a lot more technologies than there is currently, in order for it to function in a realistic manner.
 
More technologies does not necessarily mean less realistic. As some people over there propose so many more techs for Civ5, like rysmiel in this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=315604 , Civ4 tech tree is nothing more than arbitrary. Indeed, "technologies" can fail to be real ones, like Polytheism or Monotheism, or yet again Code of Laws, so there is so plenty more room for others concepts labelled "technologies" in a game like Civ, and plenty room for real technologies that existed for sure.
 
More technologies does not necessarily mean less realistic. As some people over there propose so many more techs for Civ5, like rysmiel in this thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=315604 , Civ4 tech tree is nothing more than arbitrary. Indeed, "technologies" can fail to be real ones, like Polytheism or Monotheism, or yet again Code of Laws, so there is so plenty more room for others concepts labelled "technologies" in a game like Civ, and plenty room for real technologies that existed for sure.

While I agree that there should be lots more technologies, both depth and breadth-wise, I am not at all taken with this notion of occasionally giving advanced technologies ahead of their prerequisites (or, indeed, of redefining "prerequisites" as you suggest so that one can in theory get Gunpowder straight from Iron Working.) I really do not like the notion of blind research, either.

I would much rather see things that do not fit with a simple tech-tree, such as, oh, Greek fire for example, which could be construed as an early development of napalm that does not go anywhere or lead to anything, getting separate technologies of their own - something in a line leading to Alchemy for example - and that allow you to build some equivalent of a trireme equipped with a Greek fire projector. Or put it off a couple of optional techs away from any main development line, so you can get powerful naval attack units early but at the cost of being a couple of techs late on other developments.
 
While I agree that there should be lots more technologies, both depth and breadth-wise

What means depth and breadth technology wise, according to you?

I am not at all taken with this notion of occasionally giving advanced technologies ahead of their prerequisites (or, indeed, of redefining "prerequisites" as you suggest so that one can in theory get Gunpowder straight from Iron Working.) I really do not like the notion of blind research, either.

It is about more than simply redefining prerequisites. It is about redefining History, in any game, in a deeper way than Civ already does it.

As to blind research, it is not to be taken independantly.

I would much rather see things that do not fit with a simple tech-tree, such as, oh, Greek fire for example, which could be construed as an early development of napalm that does not go anywhere or lead to anything, getting separate technologies of their own - something in a line leading to Alchemy for example - and that allow you to build some equivalent of a trireme equipped with a Greek fire projector. Or put it off a couple of optional techs away from any main development line, so you can get powerful naval attack units early but at the cost of being a couple of techs late on other developments.

But what I propose is not a "simple" tech tree. :D

Your Greek fire could own a nice place in "my" tech tree. ;)
 
What means depth and breadth technology wise, according to you?

Depth would be more stages in development. Breaking up existing technologies into smaller pieces that occur sequentially.

Breadth would be more lines of development. Breaking up existing technologies into smaller components that can occur in parallel.

The first is the difference between upgrading your first horseback rider directly to a High Medieval knight, and upgrading through a number of stages via, say, breeding heavy horses, the development of the stirrup, the development of armour for horses and so on.

The second - well, even if we stick with purely military development for a while, I can see ways of implementing it. For example, suppose you have one line of development for industrial age units that require iron and coal, and another that requires iron only, and another again that requires coal only; each needing different techs, each giving you a different set of units, each a viable alternative.

It is about more than simply redefining prerequisites. It is about redefining History, in any game, in a deeper way than Civ already does it.

And this is why i don't like it.

You know, I think you may actually be backing me into arguing in favour of "realism", for once...

But what I propose is not a "simple" tech tree. :D

I know, but what you propose seems to fix a perceived problem with "simple" tech trees which I think would be better fixed another way.
 
And this is why i don't like it.

It is easy to come and say "i don't like it", but it would be more productive to come and say "this idea could work as so" or even explain why you don't like the History remake a la civ. If you are one of those History nuts who can't stand and deplore history abuses of Civ, I would understand it, yet I could send you back your "i don't like it".

You know, I think you may actually be backing me into arguing in favour of "realism", for once...

:D Indeed. It could be an argument of realism. But I won't even use it. :D

I know, but what you propose seems to fix a perceived problem with "simple" tech trees which I think would be better fixed another way.

Fair enough, but I don't think we play in the same backyard here... you see problems, i see none, that's just a brain wave that i got and unlike you i still think that it would be great. (like all brain waves could you say - exposing it to people can help, i mean CAN help, but sometimes people are angry or hermetic ;) for some reason)
 
It is easy to come and say "i don't like it", but it would be more productive to come and say "this idea could work as so" or even explain why you don't like the History remake a la civ.

Sorry, I thought the "why" there was adequately clear. I don't like it because it's doing something at a different level from the scale of remaking history that Civ currently permits. I am perfectly fine with seafaring Mongols or landlocked Vikings or globally dominant Babylonians because, at the end of the day, I don't myself care what labels the cultures are given; as I believe I have said before, I would be equally happy if not happier with a game where the civilisations were labelled Red, Green, Yellow and Blue.

What I don't like about your idea is that it's not changing the premises, the data, or the input values of the process of technological development as modelled in the game, in the way that a civilisation's starting point and surroundings do; it's changing the logic of the process itself in a way that takes much of what I find the fun and the challenge out of it.

i mean CAN help, but sometimes people are angry or hermetic ;) for some reason)
[/quote]

I'm certainly not angry here, and, without meaning to be rude or unsympathetic to English not being your first language, I'm afraid I really have no idea what you mean by "hermetic".
 
Sorry, I thought the "why" there was adequately clear. I don't like it because it's doing something at a different level from the scale of remaking history that Civ currently permits.

Yes, but why?

I am perfectly fine with seafaring Mongols or landlocked Vikings or globally dominant Babylonians because, at the end of the day, I don't myself care what labels the cultures are given; as I believe I have said before, I would be equally happy if not happier with a game where the civilisations were labelled Red, Green, Yellow and Blue.

Yes, I know, I know.

What I don't like about your idea is that it's not changing the premises, the data, or the input values of the process of technological development as modelled in the game, in the way that a civilisation's starting point and surroundings do

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

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.

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

In that case, I would tell you that techs in Civ4 tech tree that can be jumped are not that numerous. What do you think about? Navigation and all the techs alike, if you do not start near a coast of any sort? Horseback Riding if you don't have horses or elephants? Calendar if you don't have any calendar relative ressources? The other techs are pretty much one shots and i go through them in the same way always, and I'm sure it's your case also. 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 certainly not angry here

I was not refering to you as angry.

and, without meaning to be rude or unsympathetic to English not being your first language, I'm afraid I really have no idea what you mean by "hermetic".

Oh. Just ask, then. hermetic means "impervious to external influence". http://www.docguide.com/dgc.nsf/html/English-Dictionnary.htm

By the way; I was not really demanding for your opinion, I was only refering to you as an argument that we could enlarge the tech tree without falling behind unrealistic stuff.
 
Honestly, I do think that maybe an adapting tech tree would be better, but beyond that, I agree with rys.
 
Honestly, I do think that maybe an adapting tech tree would be better, but beyond that, I agree with rys.

So you may enlight me about what he is saying.

By the way, what do you mean by an adapting tech tree, a tech tree that changes over the course of History or a tech tree that we can choose from what tech to develop?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom