Tech Trade

[Krajzen]

It would be interesting if the game had an entire separate mechanic for something like Meiji period, where we say OKAY FOLKS BUCKLE UP, WE GONNA DO MODERNISING REAL FAST and then skilled player or lucky AI performs very difficult to perform maneuver of state-directed development. It could be historically accurate method to disturb late game snowball stagnation. It would be very motivating to play till the end (you still have a chance), and it would be fun in AI hands (this loser AI somehow manages to become a threat after all)

 

[pokiehl]

The issue is that it's nowhere near strong enough to represent real-life technological diffusion, even if you directly focus on it.

In Civ, it's possible for a nation to reach electricity and things like that while their neighbors are still fighting with spears and bow and arrow.

In the real world, that simply doesn't happen outside of advanced civilizations colonizing far-off lands.

“Realism” isn’t a compelling argument for a videogame. I’m also not sure that what you’re saying is entirely correct. At any rate, nothing can be represented 100% historically. We’re talking about a mainstream videogame that relies on abstractions.

And there’s more as well, as noted below:

I think there have been modifiers to tech researched by several other civs in multiple civilization games. The "tech diffusion" has been around for decades.

That’s actually right and is ALSO represented in Civ 6, I forgot. If you’re behind the world era in techs, then they’re cheaper to research. I think all of that is a good mechanic for the concept.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

The scaling cost of techs and civics based on the world era is a good mechanic, but I really wish it was more visible/better communicated to the player. That and district discounting are two of the most unintuitive but important mechanics in the game.

I would still like a more palpable tech diffusion system, though I’m fine with the science and culture yields of international trade routes simply being cranked up.

I think it would make sense to have a form of late game tech trading in the vein of Boris’ suggestion: you and another Civ can give each other Eurekas for techs you have boosted or completed yourself. This way other Civs can progress towards it while still not being able to apply it without dedicated time and research.

I would want it to be a late game feature due to the complexity of some of those techs making them easy to explain but hard to replicate topics. A Civ can know that invisible waves bounce around like sound, carrying information based on their frequency, shape, amplitude, and other factors, but actually replicating Radio is difficult.

If there were a mechanic where techs (or at least Eurekas) spread between neighbors, I think it would work best in the early game when the techs are relatively more simple and only rely on one or two discoveries. While this would be a passive system with no player agency, it would add a new dynamic between Civs. Having a more advanced neighbor in the early game isn’t just a cause for concern- it can also be a blessing, if you manage to keep yourselves out of war.

I also don’t think it’s wise to undervalue realism. The more believable the mechanics are, the more players like myself get invested in the game, making it really feel like we’re watching a civilization grow and develop.

Everything in a video game has a function and at least a light theming, down to what we call “pause buttons” and “menus” (with those words being borrowed from other contexts). While it’s wise to be skeptical of pursuing realism, I do think it can be a very compelling reason to add or modify something in a game based on history.

At this point I think many of us come to Civ for reasons other than the gameplay, even if its addictive formula is what keeps us coming back.

But, of course, if passive tech diffusion proves problematic, it should be replaced with a more fun vehicle for the concept. Civ is a game, and we play games to have fun. We just can’t forget that the fun also comes from things beyond the mechanical interactions.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Tech Trading is good, Tech Brokering is not.

 

[Arent11]

The scaling cost of techs and civics based on the world era is a good mechanic, but I really wish it was more visible/better communicated to the player. That and district discounting are two of the most unintuitive but important mechanics in the game.

The most counterintuitive mechanic is the rising cost of settlers and workers. It absolutely makes no sense & is purely board game mechanic to somehow counter ICS. And there would be much more intuitive ways to do that.

 

[Arent11]

I think it would make sense to have a form of late game tech trading in the vein of Boris’ suggestion: you and another Civ can give each other Eurekas for techs you have boosted or completed yourself. This way other Civs can progress towards it while still not being able to apply it without dedicated time and research.
al interactions.

Eureka trading might also work. It would basically simulate giving someone the "blueprints" without the implementation. I would of course argue that such "Eurekas" should be at least 60% of the tech costs and not just 30%.

 

[Leyrann]

“Realism” isn’t a compelling argument for a videogame. I’m also not sure that what you’re saying is entirely correct. At any rate, nothing can be represented 100% historically. We’re talking about a mainstream videogame that relies on abstractions.

I'm not saying we need a realistic system.

I'm saying we need a system that causes tech to spread at a level similar to how it spreads in the real world.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Multiplayer teams has access to your teams eureka and inspirations. An approach like that in SP could work if applied to friends and allies.

 

[Bosque]

I would still like a more palpable tech diffusion system, though I’m fine with the science and culture yields of international trade routes simply being cranked up.

This is a good idea. Increasing those yields from the current +1 per trade route would be a better simulation of technological and cultural diffusion.

 

[Arent11]

Multiplayer teams has access to your teams eureka and inspirations. An approach like that in SP could work if applied to friends and allies.

There is a *huge* difference between a friend fighting desperately against an AI and asking you to trade him iron working (first find him on the map with ships) and having fixed teams that share eurekas.

I remember one game in civ 4 were I was warmonger and a friend of mine played tech civ. I traded him some cities I conquered & he kept me up to date with tech.

Such interactions are the core of coop. "I'm the great warrior civ and you are the great science civ".

 

[Arent11]

In current civ I often have the impression I'm playing "alongside" my friends not "with" my friends. The only interaction with them is waging war together. That's it.

I can't trade tech, tradings/selling luxury goods is repetitive and annoying. The world congress in multiplayer is *really* annoying.

 

[Arent11]

I'm not saying we need a realistic system.

I'm saying we need a system that causes tech to spread at a level similar to how it spreads in the real world.

That actually heavily depends on the political situation and the tech.

Certain techs/civiliations were highly guarded - for example atomic bombs. Other techs were freely traded. Free markets, in my opinion, are economically advantageous but also strongly spread technologies because there are private actors that want to sell no matter what. Dictatorships or planned markets might be bad for economy & research but might allow greater control to avoid this tech spread. Some civs might be generally more isolationist others more inclined to trade.

 

[UWHabs]

That actually heavily depends on the political situation and the tech.

Certain techs/civiliations were highly guarded - for example atomic bombs. Other techs were freely traded. Free markets, in my opinion, are economically advantageous but also strongly spread technologies because there are private actors that want to sell no matter what. Dictatorships or planned markets might be bad for economy & research but might allow greater control to avoid this tech spread. Some civs might be generally more isolationist others more inclined to trade.

And for gameplay reasons, if I can magically get gunpowder not too far after my neighbour just by them being close by, that has some weird balance.

That being said, at least in civ 6, being able to acquire the eureka for techs in other ways wouldn't be the worst. Whether that's by some sort of trade, or some other mechanism, it might not be terrible. But as mentioned before, the big problem with any system like that is that it ended up being such a fight to make sure you got in just ahead of someone else to be able to barter the tech off to everyone to get like a 5x return on investment for your science. Missing out on that bonus just was too costly.

 

[Arent11]

And for gameplay reasons, if I can magically get gunpowder not too far after my neighbour just by them being close by, that has some weird balance.

That being said, at least in civ 6, being able to acquire the eureka for techs in other ways wouldn't be the worst. Whether that's by some sort of trade, or some other mechanism, it might not be terrible. But as mentioned before, the big problem with any system like that is that it ended up being such a fight to make sure you got in just ahead of someone else to be able to barter the tech off to everyone to get like a 5x return on investment for your science. Missing out on that bonus just was too costly.

Comparing to real world tech bartering of Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, India, Pakistan etc. for atomic bombs, that works definitely different in the real world

 

[OzzyKP]

Tech Trading is good, Tech Brokering is not.

I'm proud to say that I, and other diplogamers, were the ones who introduced the idea of tech brokering into the Civ4 development and got an option to ban it.

 

[Josephias]

And, I propose, that's how Tech Diffusion gets limited. You may 'get' the Technology from a neighbor or trading partner, but being able to Apply the technology would require, in some cases, a lot more effort and application of resources

That might work and be fun, I concur. Some mechanic in the lines of tech support/blueprints: i.e you trade (or spy/osmosis acquire) “iron working” in from another civ, you have a “incomplete version of the tech” that enables buildings/units but at an increased production/gold cost, and does not count as enabler prerequisite for other techs in the tree.
This is: you have still to research the tech to progress in the tree and get normal cost benefits. In exchange, each time you produce an extra cost unit/building, part of the extra cost reverts as beakers towards the non-researched-but-used tech (practical research/learning, call it that way if you want).

This way you could still have some form of tech exchange, wich makes sense in an history simulation, without suffering of too fast tech advance due to this trade.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That might work and be fun, I concur. Some mechanic in the lines of tech support/blueprints: i.e you trade (or spy/osmosis acquire) “iron working” in from another civ, you have a “incomplete version of the tech” that enables buildings/units but at an increased production/gold cost, and does not count as enabler prerequisite for other techs in the tree.
This is: you have still to research the tech to progress in the tree and get normal cost benefits. In exchange, each time you produce an extra cost unit/building, part of the extra cost reverts as beakers towards the non-researched-but-used tech (practical research/learning, call it that way if you want).

This way you could still have some form of tech exchange, wich makes sense in an history simulation, without suffering of too fast tech advance due to this trade.

When I've contemplated sub-dividing Techs by what you can get out of them, my concept has revolved around thhe idea of a basic Technology and then Applications of the Technology. So, to take Iron Working, Applications might be Cast Iron which requires specialized furnaces with much higher temperatures, but gets you early Bombards and Cannons for your warships, another Application might be Steel in quantity which, among other things, allows you to build railroads, ironclads, skyscrapers, and a host of other buildings and UNits, but also requires Coal to fire the new Hear ths and Furnaces.

So, you might learn how to build Steel Hearths/Furnaces from someone, but you'd still have to access Coal as well as Iron Ore and physically build the Steel Mills, which are massive structures, so merely 'getting' Steel doesn't immediately translate into Having Steel.

 

[Josephias]

Yes, to be sincere I oversimplified the concept in order to make it into a more playable format, but basically the idea stands there: the diference between the knowledge of a concept and the underestanding/mastery of it.

Applications are a concept which is a bit more tricky, because you need to make them clear to differentiate from just new steps in the tech tree, so I did not consider them much. Other than you may have "received" the tech, but you cannot develop over it (neither learn following tech) until you have underestood the basics: so, if steel requires iron works, you can't trade for steel if you do not have a "learned" iron works (that is, even if you are using iron works already as you traded for it, you still need to learn it, to start investigating or trade for steel).

The idea about the steel you propose in the second paragraph is what I simplify in the "extra cost (being gold/production)". If you have traded the tech, you have not been able to build the proper logistics/infrastructure to use it beforehand, so either you are relying in imported materials / machinery (scarce and expensive), or you are building your initial, unreliable prototypes based on imported blueprints (or the direct imported items). In any case, you'll hit bottlenecks, production faults, need for external support... that would make your production less efficient, and this is the summary of it all: this is I don't need to know if it is because I have only one loaned stell mill operative, or because I have to import raw materials from my steel-wise neighbourg: in the end the result is my production is more expensive, and that is what I would reflect in-game.
As a positive effect, all that trial-and-error, external support learning,... is indeed some form of research, and there is where I propose that you can gain beakers towars the tech by building these more expensive units-buildings.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I'd like to see the first civ to research any new tech get a bonus for being the first to discover it. I'd rather see races like this, where you get a bonus for winning but no real penalty for losing (since you still learn the tech), rather than the wonder-building races or, even worse, the great person races. The bonus should be something fun, like the old "We love the [king/president/leader]" celebrations or maybe a free unit or building, possibly something tied to the tech itself or something more general like a short burst of productivity or progress towards your next great person

X turns after a civilization researches a tech, it should get cheaper for every civ in contact with them to research that tech. Espionage (if its in the game), should just get that discount sooner, rather than having to wait the full X turns. Later era policies could potential increase X to protect your tech secrets, at the cost of also slowing down how quickly you get the bonus for techs your competitors know.

 

[Voidwalkin]

assumes that a new 'tech' is far too easily absorbed and adapted between potentially far too different cultures/civic/social policies, and existing Tech.

As a IRL Example, does anyone seriously think the Lakotah Souix could have traded for Iron Working, and then built the Mines, Bloomeries and Forges and Foundries required to actually make Iron Working work? Possibly, but not likely, and in any case not without considerable time between learning what to do and how to do it and being able to apply that - especially when virtually all the skills required are very different in a society that didn't have any kind of metal working 'technology' other than cold working of copper.

I take your point, but actually, yes. It was cheaper to trade for goods than to develop their own production infrastructure. If you change those economics, or a Lakota leader emerged who believed it to be strategically beneficial, yes, they probably could have in a 10 year period.

I'd like brokering techs back.

You could make a system that adds immersion around it while maintaining balance.

Tech learned in x turns after final exchange is made. Modifiers present based on several factors
Tech is one era ahead, +50%. Two eras ahead, 125%, to represent difficult for an independent civ to integrate and alter their social structures. If unrest is present in the game, this may add it.
No border with civ +25%
No cities on the same continent +100%
Exchange is with a neighboring civ -25%.
Trade route with civ -25%
Alliance with ci -10%