I have been reading a fair bit recently(Sisiutil's ALC Series, Raph Koster's A Theory of Fun for Game Design, and Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel), more than I have been playing CiV, but I have not stopped thinking about the game. I don't think I'm reaching at all bringing these sources into the topic, and I hope some readers will be familiar with all three texts so I can get feedback.
The point of this thread is to try and identify Seminal Techs in the tech tree and to discuss how they impact our fun (learning and mastering the game) when playing CiV.
To clarify, I'm not bothering with Warlords in this initial post. I just got my copy but have not played a full game yet, and I don't think it's well-enough understood to provide common references.
Seminal Techs (powerful techs, highlights of the tree) have been discussed ad-nauseum btcause they represent powerful strategies that are useful across a variety of civs/leaders and improve your chances of winning the game.
My list of seminal techs includes (and feel free to supplement and argue with the list):
My perspective is heavily biased and all of these techs are likely familiar to the forum veterans for the power they unlock.
If you don't know the pattern, these techs form the core of your CiV power base: Military strength, economic strength, and production.
I am not an expert player (I am new to the Civ series and I am comfortable playing at prince difficulty) but these techs have been drilled into my head again and again. I'd like to see what others have to say about them, if they think the techs that unlock these powers are appropriate or fun to unlock, and whether or not you are bored yet.
I have sensed a growing trend reading Sisutil's ALC Series, which had a large part in prompting this post: he (and the many players who lend their advice) consistently tout the benefits of early war. Many also assert that early wars are the best (most reliable?) way of winning on emperor-diety level games.
Not only that, the results of his series clearly indicate that early wars are the key to setting up later-game victory conditions. In addition, his best result was playing as Hapshepsut when he dominated his entire continent in an ultra-early war. The game rewards you for warring and winning early.
Beyond that, there seems to be a critical point in every game where dominance has been asserted (or is virtually guaranteed) and he is then faced with the chore (or so it seems to me) of choosing which victory condition to execute. Victory is all but assured, from that point on it's a matter of changing gears to execute your victory of choice, but the default seems to be "choose whatever can be completed earliest." It seems like that maximizes the score (see Hapshepsut again) and minimizes the tedium. Does this bother you? Do you consider it a critical game flaw? (I'm still working it out for myself.)
Another question I have is whether this was an intended design decision. Maybe someone has a link to a dev or tester comment that can confirm whether there was supposed to be so much emphasis on early wars. I'd be interested to read what the design decisions were.
Reading the various forum experts and identifying these seminal techs has also taught me to value some underdog traits more highly: in particular the half-price buildings of the Expansive and Organized traits. Half priced graneries, Courthouses, and Lighthouses(when needed) are powerful tools, particularly when you learn of their synergy with whipping. I think Julius Caesar's SP dominance is over-attributed to praetorians (they are mighty, no question) and conveniently forgets the powerful synergy his traits have with the early military-production machine: expansive graneries with cottages set up to fuel military whipping (praets) then onto economic whipping (courthouses).
To wrap it up, and tie to my original point, do you agree with these tech choices? Which ones did I miss? And do the names of the techs they are tied to matter to you? Does it affect your gameplay that slavery is a civic tied to Bronze Working or do you only care about the mechanic underneath? Do you think these choices accurately reflect seminal developments in human technology or do you think they are game-design choices that are arbitrary and need to be accepted at face value to play the game? My own knowledge of history is small(but growing!), so I welcome any input here.
Personally CiV has been a great learning tool for me and has inspired me to read more of history. I'd like to find out if its an accurate learning tool. I believe without a doubt its meant as a teaching device, that its purpose as a game is to teach us something and make the learning process fun. I can't help but see the pattern in the process though: Optimal early choices, the right military technology with the production to support it, and enough economy to stay afloat. What else am I missing?
The point of this thread is to try and identify Seminal Techs in the tech tree and to discuss how they impact our fun (learning and mastering the game) when playing CiV.
To clarify, I'm not bothering with Warlords in this initial post. I just got my copy but have not played a full game yet, and I don't think it's well-enough understood to provide common references.
Seminal Techs (powerful techs, highlights of the tree) have been discussed ad-nauseum btcause they represent powerful strategies that are useful across a variety of civs/leaders and improve your chances of winning the game.
My list of seminal techs includes (and feel free to supplement and argue with the list):
- Bronze working - axemen, chopping, and pop-rushing; the ultimate Military-production tech
- Pottery: Cottages and Granaries; the keys to a healthy economy and super-charging production (via Slavery)
- Construction - Military power; catapaults are resourcesless and are integral to any war beyond the ultra-early rush. Elephants are simply gravy if available, and the extra happiness from ivory and colosseums enables more production via happiness (more whipping or larger cities).
- Literature - Heroic Epic and the Great Library; the WonderTech. Military production and research (commerce).
- Code of Laws - my favorite of the "Seminal" techs; it is a wonderful package including Courthouses, Founding a Religion, and presents first conflict in civics, the Caste System, an alternative to Slavery. (The most recent ALC, Frederick using a specialist economy contrasted the benefits of a slavery driven production vs specialist research (commerce).
- Civil Service - Production and Commerce powerhouse (via Bureacracy) and military finisher - Macemen.
My perspective is heavily biased and all of these techs are likely familiar to the forum veterans for the power they unlock.
If you don't know the pattern, these techs form the core of your CiV power base: Military strength, economic strength, and production.
I am not an expert player (I am new to the Civ series and I am comfortable playing at prince difficulty) but these techs have been drilled into my head again and again. I'd like to see what others have to say about them, if they think the techs that unlock these powers are appropriate or fun to unlock, and whether or not you are bored yet.
I have sensed a growing trend reading Sisutil's ALC Series, which had a large part in prompting this post: he (and the many players who lend their advice) consistently tout the benefits of early war. Many also assert that early wars are the best (most reliable?) way of winning on emperor-diety level games.
Not only that, the results of his series clearly indicate that early wars are the key to setting up later-game victory conditions. In addition, his best result was playing as Hapshepsut when he dominated his entire continent in an ultra-early war. The game rewards you for warring and winning early.
Beyond that, there seems to be a critical point in every game where dominance has been asserted (or is virtually guaranteed) and he is then faced with the chore (or so it seems to me) of choosing which victory condition to execute. Victory is all but assured, from that point on it's a matter of changing gears to execute your victory of choice, but the default seems to be "choose whatever can be completed earliest." It seems like that maximizes the score (see Hapshepsut again) and minimizes the tedium. Does this bother you? Do you consider it a critical game flaw? (I'm still working it out for myself.)
Another question I have is whether this was an intended design decision. Maybe someone has a link to a dev or tester comment that can confirm whether there was supposed to be so much emphasis on early wars. I'd be interested to read what the design decisions were.
Reading the various forum experts and identifying these seminal techs has also taught me to value some underdog traits more highly: in particular the half-price buildings of the Expansive and Organized traits. Half priced graneries, Courthouses, and Lighthouses(when needed) are powerful tools, particularly when you learn of their synergy with whipping. I think Julius Caesar's SP dominance is over-attributed to praetorians (they are mighty, no question) and conveniently forgets the powerful synergy his traits have with the early military-production machine: expansive graneries with cottages set up to fuel military whipping (praets) then onto economic whipping (courthouses).
To wrap it up, and tie to my original point, do you agree with these tech choices? Which ones did I miss? And do the names of the techs they are tied to matter to you? Does it affect your gameplay that slavery is a civic tied to Bronze Working or do you only care about the mechanic underneath? Do you think these choices accurately reflect seminal developments in human technology or do you think they are game-design choices that are arbitrary and need to be accepted at face value to play the game? My own knowledge of history is small(but growing!), so I welcome any input here.
Personally CiV has been a great learning tool for me and has inspired me to read more of history. I'd like to find out if its an accurate learning tool. I believe without a doubt its meant as a teaching device, that its purpose as a game is to teach us something and make the learning process fun. I can't help but see the pattern in the process though: Optimal early choices, the right military technology with the production to support it, and enough economy to stay afloat. What else am I missing?
