Tech Tree Revision
- Thread starter Boris Gudenuf
- Start date
Eddie Verdde
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 85
In a way, that has been already tried in Civ5-BNW with the income/outcome of beakers during trade routes. It was an elegant solution (and historically accurate one) to simulate the passive diffusion of technology from one civ to another. Of course there are more drastic and visible ways of doing that, such as: a caravan returns home with a compass or a bag of powder, causing a technological breakthrough in your civ. Or you defeat an army from a more advanced civ capturing their weapons and your smiths learn how to work iron. Anything could happen.
But all of this has existed in one way or another. In the first civ games you would get a free tech everytime you conquered a city from a more advanced rival. You could also trade techs with friendly civs or demand techs from weaker civs. And you still can get free techs from ancient ruins in early game. So there's a lot of options to choose from. I guess the problem is how to implement the ideas in a balanced way. It would make sense if (e.g.) you instantaneously got the Writing technology if two of your neighbours had that knowledge already. That would be a possible simulation of passive technology diffusion. But sometimes things develop in unpredicted ways and if such a system wasn't well developed it could lead to everybody having the same technology at the same time. Or: why spending beakers in Engineering if in a couple a turns my neighbour will have it done and I will have it for free?
Everything is possible, but not everything is easy to implement. But if most people are happy enough with a cornucopia of units, leaders, civs and fancy screenshots, that only require a couple of good artists, a bit of reading in a History book and a few more bits, why would a game company invest its resources in developing the AI or the mechanics of the game?
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,835
This is what i'm currently working in my new mod. Technology reforms.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/enlightenment-era.651890/page-2
Here, discussions in this thread hinted that some techs are misplaced, for me Gunpowder should be at the very end of Middle Ages (and i'm about to test the second version where i've move TECH_GUNPOWDER (unlocks Bombard) there and added a new tech (Firearms) in place (Unlocks Musketmen and Pike & Shot). the other errata was that Steel is to be placed in the late Industrial Era (Bessmer Procecss gave birth to Steel Mill complexes particularly in Essen (Krupp) Birmingham (Both in England and Alabama, USA) and Pittsburgh (Carnegie's Union Steel), )
IF steel should be placed at the end of Industrial Era, then
1. What should be the tech that enables Artillery? chemistry?
2. Also ones that enables Dreadnough? Turbine? or Electricity?. if Steel is to enable Protected Cruiser (Voila! i've found the solutions for Ships of the Line and Frigate-- Unit class 'Cruiser', and Frigate now belonged to cruiser), and Pre Dreadnoughs.
https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/enlightenment-era.651890/page-2
Here, discussions in this thread hinted that some techs are misplaced, for me Gunpowder should be at the very end of Middle Ages (and i'm about to test the second version where i've move TECH_GUNPOWDER (unlocks Bombard) there and added a new tech (Firearms) in place (Unlocks Musketmen and Pike & Shot). the other errata was that Steel is to be placed in the late Industrial Era (Bessmer Procecss gave birth to Steel Mill complexes particularly in Essen (Krupp) Birmingham (Both in England and Alabama, USA) and Pittsburgh (Carnegie's Union Steel), )
IF steel should be placed at the end of Industrial Era, then
1. What should be the tech that enables Artillery? chemistry?
2. Also ones that enables Dreadnough? Turbine? or Electricity?. if Steel is to enable Protected Cruiser (Voila! i've found the solutions for Ships of the Line and Frigate-- Unit class 'Cruiser', and Frigate now belonged to cruiser), and Pre Dreadnoughs.
Of course things would be difficult to balance if science would still be handled as a "bucket there you drop
".
Instead, having an organic tech progress there you are able to only boost progress directly by actions and indirectly by strategically decisions, could be more like what strategic resources used to be preGS - a factor that determine the capacity.
This may look like diminishing or even removal of decision making, but not necessary - it depends on what else is there.
Despite my joy for micromanaging, I would rather make decisions that frame the civ's identity, than spend a lot of time changing city projects to min/max the output.
".Instead, having an organic tech progress there you are able to only boost progress directly by actions and indirectly by strategically decisions,
could be more like what strategic resources used to be preGS - a factor that determine the capacity.This may look like diminishing or even removal of decision making, but not necessary - it depends on what else is there.
Despite my joy for micromanaging, I would rather make decisions that frame the civ's identity, than spend a lot of time changing city projects to min/max the output.
Eddie Verdde
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 85
Personally, I welcome every mod that aims at a tech tree rebalancing/improvement.
But I think that a truly reform of the tech tree mechanics has to go beyond this "replacing tech position in the tree" or "adding prerequisite technologies" sort of things. There are thousands of possibilities and every single player will have his opinion on where this or that technology should stand. So I don't see the point in coming up with a new tech tree every now and then, as if everyone was trying to "reinvent the wheel". Reconfiguring the tech just for the sake of reconfiguration, doesn't necessarily lead to a better game experience if other aspects don't follow.
On the other hand, if we're aiming at historical accuracy, why should Gunpowder be at the end of Middle Ages if it was invented by the Chinese about 1000 AD? This only shows that maybe we're being too Eurocentric when it comes to technological progress. I don't like when gunpowder appears too early in the game, either, but that's only because it doesn't give me enough chance to play around with archers, legions and catapults. Plus, you should only be able to "research" gunpowder if you had access to a source of saltpeter (this is related to the environmental pre-conditions to research, discussed above) and if you had a strong incentive to research it (such as warfare, for instance). How can you "research" or improve something that you don't know? In civ, they keep doing the opposite: research animal husbandry and THEN you'lee see the horses in the landscape (so, if I happen to not having a single horse nearby the research might have been pointless).
This demonstrates how the logic of tech research is flawed and how the gameplay could become much more interesting if the tech-tree mechanics was improved. Another paradigmatically example is that of steam power. In real life, the first record of a steam engine dates back to the 1st century AD, by Heron of Alexandria. The principles where already there, the potential was also there, but there was no social, economic or political incentive to develop it for practical purposes. So the idea died away, until someone in the British Isles came up with the idea of using steam power to pump the water of the coal mines. But the idea only stuck probably because there was a great incentive to get coal and the steam engine was a good solution, otherwise the history of industrialization could have followed a different path.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Having been mentioned a few times now, let's take Gunpowder as another example of a Tech Advance that is much more complicated than people think it is.
First, "1000 AD/CE" is not entirely accurate for the date of its discovery - a lot depends on exactly what you think is being discovered.
142 CE: First mention, in a Han Chinese document, of a "mixture of three powders that fly and dance" - which may possibly mean gunpowder, but note that exactly which 'powders' is not specified. This is all too typical of early Chinese (and other) textual 'evidence'.
492 CE: Taoist alchemists in China now specifically mention Sulfur-saltpeter-charcoal mixtures as elixers or medicines - which is legitimate, since it is a heart stimulant - but is not described as an explosive mixture. What we have here is a pyrotechnic that burns brightly, but does not explode or propel anything.
808 CE: A Tang Dynasty 'book' gives the first accurate formula for the sulfur-saltpeter-charcoal mixture, and, sure enough, the saltpeter content is less than 60%, much too low for an Explosive: this is a 'rapid flammable' - a pyrotechnic mixture.
904 CE: First mention of 'gunpowder' based mixture for Fire Arrows for crossbows, in China - the pyrotechnic effect again, now specifically applied to a military device and use.
950 CE - first mention of the Fire Lance in China, the first gunpowder weapon. BUT it is not a gun, it is a flame projector, a sort of 'Roman Candle/flamethrower'. Most common effect mentioned is to scare the enemy horses so that his cavalry can't charge, or even get near your infantry.
969 CE - Song Dynasty China using 'gunpowder' as a propellent for fireworks and incendiary devices, and by 1023 CE they are manufacturing gunpowder for these purposes on an industrial scale.
1044 CE Song Dynasty handbook gives recipes for gunpowder to be used in ceramic or cast iron 'grenades' BUT the proportions are still wrong for a real explosive: these are still incendiary devices.
1128 - 1129 CE: First depiction of a Hand Cannon - a metal tube for firing projectiles using gunpowder, in China, and a Song Dynasty Decree that all Chinese warships have trebuchets (traction, not counterweight) to fire gunpowder incendiary bombs - the first gunpowder-based naval weapons.
1219 CE: Roger Bacon is the first European to describe 'gunpowder' - and his proportions are for an explosive, not incendiary, mixture.
1326 CE:"Pot-de-Fer" (Fire Pot) described - first gunpowder 'cannon' in Europe.
1340 CE: First known use of a Pot-de-Fer on a ship (in France)
1375 CE First known use of a Bombard, a 1-ton cannon throwing large stone shot to smash a city wall (France)
1395 CE: Earliest edition of the "Fire Dragon Manual" in China, which describes all the gunpowder weapons in use for the previous 100 years or so: rockets, land mines, fire arrows, grenades and trebuchet bombs, naval mines, hand cannons and small cannons mounted on wheeled carts. Significantly, no mention or description of anything larger than very light artillery throwing small shot at short range: no Bombards or large cannon to smash fortifications and take cities.
1411 CE: First cast iron Bombard built in France, firing a 400 kg shot. At virtually the same time, the first 'hackbuss' or "Hook Gun' matchlock to be fired from a wall as a defensive weapon and first inventory listing small iron guns on ships in England
1470 CE: shoulder stock and trigger mechanism added to the Hackbus, making it the Arquebus, the first practical shoulder-fired gunpowder small arm for infantry.
Summary:
"gunpowder" was around for about 1000 years as a medicine or pyrotechnic before it became an effective explosive.
More importantly, as an explosive it was used strictly for short-ranged flame/shotgun-type weapons for almost 400 years before the 'musket/arquebus', a real killing gunpowder weapon for infantry, was developed.
Finally, the Bombard city-killing monster cannon was developed about 100 years before the 'musket' - in game terms, the Bombard precedes the musketman by much more than a turn or two.
Finally, the interesting question: why did Europe develop explosive gunpowder almost as soon as it knew about the stuff while the Chinese messed about with flame-producing versions for centuries without using it to drive a projectile through somebody?
First, because throwing a heavy rock against a Chinese city wall was a waste of time - something I didn't learn until last year when I read a Doctoral Thesis on Rammed Earth construction. It seems that there was very little good building stone in China - the bulk of the land is covered in loess or river-deposited clays that make great agricultural land, pottery, and bricks, but make good large stones hard to get at. Consequently, most large Chinese construction was either wood or Rammed Earth - compacted clay which formed most of the "Long (Great) Wall" and virtually all the city fortifications.
A rammed earth wall was, basically, as thick as it was high: 40 x 40 feet was a common dimension. That meant, hitting it with a 900 pound stone (like the cast iron Bombard threw) simply buried the stone in the rammed earth, but made no hole in the wall. The way to defeat the wall was to throw flame and flammables at the top of the wall until it was clear of defenders and then climb over it with lots and lots of infantry. Hence, the Chinese concentrated on what they needed: pyrotechnic flammables that could be thrown by Trebuchets to clear the top of the wall, and hand-held short-range rock and flamethrowers to remove defending infantry.
The Europeans, of course, faced high solid stone 'curtain' walls and towers defending everything from Constantinople to Cornwall, and a heavy rock, or later, iron solid shot, could crack and crush the stones in those walls very well, when projected against them at 800 - 1000 feet per second. Thus, Europeans needed and developed 'siege cannon' starting with the Bombards.
And finally, the Chinese did not need a handgun: they had had crossbows with efficient trigger mechanisms for centuries already, and the majority of Chinese troops (and their opponents) did not wear metal armor. Burn them at short range, put a crossbow bolt through them at long range, that was all that was needed. By contrast, the 13th century saw the rise of good steel articulated plate armor in Europe: except by sheer luck, neither a longbow nor a crossbow would penetrate good plate, and even lowly foot soldiers were starting to wear plate cuirasses and helmets, while knights were encased head to foot. A musket from the beginning with explosive gunpowder could drive a metal ball at up to 1000 feet per second - 5 times or more faster than an arrow or crossbow bolt - and would drive the bullet right through any plate metal armor a man could wear and still move in.
Exit body armor for most, enter the musketman and, as was said at the time, the triumph of 'villainous saltpetre'.
So, 'gunpowder' can lead in several directions depending on what is Needed and what is already in place: stone versus Rammed Earth walls, plate steel armor metallurgy versus leather armor, crossbows as the 'standard infantry weapon versus spears and pikes.
First, "1000 AD/CE" is not entirely accurate for the date of its discovery - a lot depends on exactly what you think is being discovered.
142 CE: First mention, in a Han Chinese document, of a "mixture of three powders that fly and dance" - which may possibly mean gunpowder, but note that exactly which 'powders' is not specified. This is all too typical of early Chinese (and other) textual 'evidence'.
492 CE: Taoist alchemists in China now specifically mention Sulfur-saltpeter-charcoal mixtures as elixers or medicines - which is legitimate, since it is a heart stimulant - but is not described as an explosive mixture. What we have here is a pyrotechnic that burns brightly, but does not explode or propel anything.
808 CE: A Tang Dynasty 'book' gives the first accurate formula for the sulfur-saltpeter-charcoal mixture, and, sure enough, the saltpeter content is less than 60%, much too low for an Explosive: this is a 'rapid flammable' - a pyrotechnic mixture.
904 CE: First mention of 'gunpowder' based mixture for Fire Arrows for crossbows, in China - the pyrotechnic effect again, now specifically applied to a military device and use.
950 CE - first mention of the Fire Lance in China, the first gunpowder weapon. BUT it is not a gun, it is a flame projector, a sort of 'Roman Candle/flamethrower'. Most common effect mentioned is to scare the enemy horses so that his cavalry can't charge, or even get near your infantry.
969 CE - Song Dynasty China using 'gunpowder' as a propellent for fireworks and incendiary devices, and by 1023 CE they are manufacturing gunpowder for these purposes on an industrial scale.
1044 CE Song Dynasty handbook gives recipes for gunpowder to be used in ceramic or cast iron 'grenades' BUT the proportions are still wrong for a real explosive: these are still incendiary devices.
1128 - 1129 CE: First depiction of a Hand Cannon - a metal tube for firing projectiles using gunpowder, in China, and a Song Dynasty Decree that all Chinese warships have trebuchets (traction, not counterweight) to fire gunpowder incendiary bombs - the first gunpowder-based naval weapons.
1219 CE: Roger Bacon is the first European to describe 'gunpowder' - and his proportions are for an explosive, not incendiary, mixture.
1326 CE:"Pot-de-Fer" (Fire Pot) described - first gunpowder 'cannon' in Europe.
1340 CE: First known use of a Pot-de-Fer on a ship (in France)
1375 CE First known use of a Bombard, a 1-ton cannon throwing large stone shot to smash a city wall (France)
1395 CE: Earliest edition of the "Fire Dragon Manual" in China, which describes all the gunpowder weapons in use for the previous 100 years or so: rockets, land mines, fire arrows, grenades and trebuchet bombs, naval mines, hand cannons and small cannons mounted on wheeled carts. Significantly, no mention or description of anything larger than very light artillery throwing small shot at short range: no Bombards or large cannon to smash fortifications and take cities.
1411 CE: First cast iron Bombard built in France, firing a 400 kg shot. At virtually the same time, the first 'hackbuss' or "Hook Gun' matchlock to be fired from a wall as a defensive weapon and first inventory listing small iron guns on ships in England
1470 CE: shoulder stock and trigger mechanism added to the Hackbus, making it the Arquebus, the first practical shoulder-fired gunpowder small arm for infantry.
Summary:
"gunpowder" was around for about 1000 years as a medicine or pyrotechnic before it became an effective explosive.
More importantly, as an explosive it was used strictly for short-ranged flame/shotgun-type weapons for almost 400 years before the 'musket/arquebus', a real killing gunpowder weapon for infantry, was developed.
Finally, the Bombard city-killing monster cannon was developed about 100 years before the 'musket' - in game terms, the Bombard precedes the musketman by much more than a turn or two.
Finally, the interesting question: why did Europe develop explosive gunpowder almost as soon as it knew about the stuff while the Chinese messed about with flame-producing versions for centuries without using it to drive a projectile through somebody?
First, because throwing a heavy rock against a Chinese city wall was a waste of time - something I didn't learn until last year when I read a Doctoral Thesis on Rammed Earth construction. It seems that there was very little good building stone in China - the bulk of the land is covered in loess or river-deposited clays that make great agricultural land, pottery, and bricks, but make good large stones hard to get at. Consequently, most large Chinese construction was either wood or Rammed Earth - compacted clay which formed most of the "Long (Great) Wall" and virtually all the city fortifications.
A rammed earth wall was, basically, as thick as it was high: 40 x 40 feet was a common dimension. That meant, hitting it with a 900 pound stone (like the cast iron Bombard threw) simply buried the stone in the rammed earth, but made no hole in the wall. The way to defeat the wall was to throw flame and flammables at the top of the wall until it was clear of defenders and then climb over it with lots and lots of infantry. Hence, the Chinese concentrated on what they needed: pyrotechnic flammables that could be thrown by Trebuchets to clear the top of the wall, and hand-held short-range rock and flamethrowers to remove defending infantry.
The Europeans, of course, faced high solid stone 'curtain' walls and towers defending everything from Constantinople to Cornwall, and a heavy rock, or later, iron solid shot, could crack and crush the stones in those walls very well, when projected against them at 800 - 1000 feet per second. Thus, Europeans needed and developed 'siege cannon' starting with the Bombards.
And finally, the Chinese did not need a handgun: they had had crossbows with efficient trigger mechanisms for centuries already, and the majority of Chinese troops (and their opponents) did not wear metal armor. Burn them at short range, put a crossbow bolt through them at long range, that was all that was needed. By contrast, the 13th century saw the rise of good steel articulated plate armor in Europe: except by sheer luck, neither a longbow nor a crossbow would penetrate good plate, and even lowly foot soldiers were starting to wear plate cuirasses and helmets, while knights were encased head to foot. A musket from the beginning with explosive gunpowder could drive a metal ball at up to 1000 feet per second - 5 times or more faster than an arrow or crossbow bolt - and would drive the bullet right through any plate metal armor a man could wear and still move in.
Exit body armor for most, enter the musketman and, as was said at the time, the triumph of 'villainous saltpetre'.
So, 'gunpowder' can lead in several directions depending on what is Needed and what is already in place: stone versus Rammed Earth walls, plate steel armor metallurgy versus leather armor, crossbows as the 'standard infantry weapon versus spears and pikes.
Eddie Verdde
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 85
@Boris Gudenuf,
Thanks for ilustrating my view with such a detailed example. Of course, when I say Gunpowder, I mean it in the sense that is used in Civ - that is, for military purposes. That's why it's called Gunpowder. Not saltpeter, not fireworks, but actually Gunpowder. And as you mention in your post and I had mentioned earlier, it started to be used for military purposes in China around the turn of the first millenium, give or take a century but in any case much sooner than in Europe.
From what has been discussed so far, I guess that the following assumptions could underlie a revision of the tech tree:
1. You can't research something out of thin air. You always need a material "primer" of some sort. Without access to a source of copper, wisemen/laymen/craftsmen would never be aware of its existence, would never use it, would never notice its properties and would never experiment with it.
2. Even if the material resource was available, it's use would be conditioned not only by incentives and necessities of different kinds but also by the technological limitations of the time. If there's no available method of extracting sulfur efficiently, gunpowder is not cost-effective, therefore not economically viable. Or: if the weapons currently being used are good enough to maintain the status quo, there's no political incentive to develop a new weapon.
3.But even when we're talking about aboundant resources or about abstract concepts, that are available to everyone, eventually ideas will arise in certain places and not in others due to mere chance (random events or "great people", for instance). And the diffusion of those ideas will depend on the degree of contact between civilizations. Apparently carts was never used by Pre-colombian civs, although the concept of the wheel is an abstract concept that anyone can come up with. But if America was in contact with Euroasia earlier, the precolombians would eventually adopt the wheel too, or the euroasians would adopt the mayan calendar or develop an aesthetic taste for big stone heads.
So the tech tree and the mechanics of research could depend on essentialy four things: 1) resources, 2) historical and geographical context, 3) necessity and relevance, 4) randomness. All this factors could condition research in different ways, depending on the technology in question. Resources could be a limiting factor for some technologies. Historical and geographical context could provide boosts or penalties in researching some techs. Necessity and relevance would condition the choices of the player. And randomness would create new and inexpected scenarios which provided new opportunitites to the player or could force him to adapt.
Thanks for ilustrating my view with such a detailed example. Of course, when I say Gunpowder, I mean it in the sense that is used in Civ - that is, for military purposes. That's why it's called Gunpowder.
Not saltpeter, not fireworks, but actually Gunpowder. And as you mention in your post and I had mentioned earlier, it started to be used for military purposes in China around the turn of the first millenium, give or take a century but in any case much sooner than in Europe.From what has been discussed so far, I guess that the following assumptions could underlie a revision of the tech tree:
1. You can't research something out of thin air. You always need a material "primer" of some sort. Without access to a source of copper, wisemen/laymen/craftsmen would never be aware of its existence, would never use it, would never notice its properties and would never experiment with it.
2. Even if the material resource was available, it's use would be conditioned not only by incentives and necessities of different kinds but also by the technological limitations of the time. If there's no available method of extracting sulfur efficiently, gunpowder is not cost-effective, therefore not economically viable. Or: if the weapons currently being used are good enough to maintain the status quo, there's no political incentive to develop a new weapon.
3.But even when we're talking about aboundant resources or about abstract concepts, that are available to everyone, eventually ideas will arise in certain places and not in others due to mere chance (random events or "great people", for instance). And the diffusion of those ideas will depend on the degree of contact between civilizations. Apparently carts was never used by Pre-colombian civs, although the concept of the wheel is an abstract concept that anyone can come up with. But if America was in contact with Euroasia earlier, the precolombians would eventually adopt the wheel too, or the euroasians would adopt the mayan calendar or develop an aesthetic taste for big stone heads.
So the tech tree and the mechanics of research could depend on essentialy four things: 1) resources, 2) historical and geographical context, 3) necessity and relevance, 4) randomness. All this factors could condition research in different ways, depending on the technology in question. Resources could be a limiting factor for some technologies. Historical and geographical context could provide boosts or penalties in researching some techs. Necessity and relevance would condition the choices of the player. And randomness would create new and inexpected scenarios which provided new opportunitites to the player or could force him to adapt.
mitsho
Deity
So many interesting points here, but to keep it short, I believe we first need to discuss „yields“ first: food is local, but the population of a city actually depends way more on trade routes and other things. For production, why does having a hill nearby help me build a ship? And hanging a picture in my museum expands my border how exactly? Yields are a simplification needed once, but I feel we can re-invent them now.
I didn‘t say anything on science since there are enough examples in this thread... I would lose it completely, and rather than fill a bucket by turn, I‘d rather spend it in bulk. Some techs would be bought with gold, other require a new „government“-yield, some have triggers by your actions, some have a percentage chance of dropping, some need cooperation with other civs whatever. But no single science yield that helps researching iron working and political philosophy at the same time.
I see the gameplay need for technologies to act as a timeline, so having them purely depend on actions would run counter to giving the player self-determination. I like the compromise here in the idea that techs could increase quality or speed or reduce cost by getting deeper. Interesting gameplay: where do you rush forward, where do you stay a while?
I also like the idea of a tech tree and a civic web where not every civ has to research every idea.
And Gedemons mod looks cool.
I didn‘t say anything on science since there are enough examples in this thread... I would lose it completely, and rather than fill a bucket by turn, I‘d rather spend it in bulk. Some techs would be bought with gold, other require a new „government“-yield, some have triggers by your actions, some have a percentage chance of dropping, some need cooperation with other civs whatever. But no single science yield that helps researching iron working and political philosophy at the same time.
I see the gameplay need for technologies to act as a timeline, so having them purely depend on actions would run counter to giving the player self-determination. I like the compromise here in the idea that techs could increase quality or speed or reduce cost by getting deeper. Interesting gameplay: where do you rush forward, where do you stay a while?
I also like the idea of a tech tree and a civic web where not every civ has to research every idea.
And Gedemons mod looks cool.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
The best thing I see in this Thread so far is that people are willing to take a hard look at Everything now: the 'old way' of doing 4X Historical, and especially of doing Civ games, just can't be accepted as the 'only way' and especially not as 'the best way' of doing things.
So with that in mind, let me throw out a concept for 'semi-uncontrolled Research and Technological Development that may get away from you at any minute':
Each Technical or 'Scientific' Development requires that you fill in 4 'blocks' before you get access to it and all of its consequences. The blocks are, In Order:
1. Need.
2. Resource Requirements
3. Knowledge Requirements
4. Research
Note that you cannot apply Research or 'Science Points' until the other Blocks have been filled in. Your people and society will not try to research something they see no need for, and they will not try to do something they don't have the physical and mental prerequisites for.
Need could be further divided into categories, like the good ol' '4X' categories that define the game:
Exploration - seafaring and ship building, transportation, mobility, ways of looking at the world
Extermination - weapons, army organization, fortifications, spying
Exploitation - mining and extracting, new trade goods, tile/terrain manipulation
Expand - population increase, food production, social control, construction.
Resource Prerequisites are more than the ‘old game standbys’ of Horses, Iron, Aluminum, etc. Some of those are second stage or artificial. For instance, the ‘wild’ horse is big enough to Ride, but not big enough to carry a man, saddle, armor and weapons comfortably, so the horse has to be fed from pastures and agricultural fields (oats, alfalfa, etc) so advanced development of Horsemanship will require more than ‘just’ Horses.
Knowledge Prerequisites are developments required to even start considering something new. That means it includes both purely Technical Developments, but also possible Social, Civic, Religious, or Political requirements, and may even be based on your neighbors, climate and terrain that you have to deal with, which generate their own requirements.
Research. The amount of ‘Science’ your Culture/Civ generates may vary wildly with a number of factors, including Religion, Social Organization, Politics, and Outside Influences (neighbors, foreign influences), Literacy or access to Knowledge among your people, etc. Many of those may not be entirely under your control, or there might be good reasons not to maximize Science because of nasty side-effects: like making your society open to New Things and outside influences and finding that means they will not be satisfied with their leaders, government, or society and so you have revolts and revolution and civil war: the extra Science may be not worth the price.
And, @Eddie Verdde , there are several places for the 'random event' to affect things: aside from the Unexpected Scientist/mechanic/tinkerer that affects your research, a climate event, neighbor's action (and 'neighbors' includes Camps, 'Outposts', Tribal Huts, City States, and any other 'Non Major Civ' players on the map) and any of a host of other Events and Decisions (to use a good old EU term) could affect Needs, Requirements or Research at almost any time.
So with that in mind, let me throw out a concept for 'semi-uncontrolled Research and Technological Development that may get away from you at any minute':
Each Technical or 'Scientific' Development requires that you fill in 4 'blocks' before you get access to it and all of its consequences. The blocks are, In Order:
1. Need.
2. Resource Requirements
3. Knowledge Requirements
4. Research
Note that you cannot apply Research or 'Science Points' until the other Blocks have been filled in. Your people and society will not try to research something they see no need for, and they will not try to do something they don't have the physical and mental prerequisites for.
Need could be further divided into categories, like the good ol' '4X' categories that define the game:
Exploration - seafaring and ship building, transportation, mobility, ways of looking at the world
Extermination - weapons, army organization, fortifications, spying
Exploitation - mining and extracting, new trade goods, tile/terrain manipulation
Expand - population increase, food production, social control, construction.
Resource Prerequisites are more than the ‘old game standbys’ of Horses, Iron, Aluminum, etc. Some of those are second stage or artificial. For instance, the ‘wild’ horse is big enough to Ride, but not big enough to carry a man, saddle, armor and weapons comfortably, so the horse has to be fed from pastures and agricultural fields (oats, alfalfa, etc) so advanced development of Horsemanship will require more than ‘just’ Horses.
Knowledge Prerequisites are developments required to even start considering something new. That means it includes both purely Technical Developments, but also possible Social, Civic, Religious, or Political requirements, and may even be based on your neighbors, climate and terrain that you have to deal with, which generate their own requirements.
Research. The amount of ‘Science’ your Culture/Civ generates may vary wildly with a number of factors, including Religion, Social Organization, Politics, and Outside Influences (neighbors, foreign influences), Literacy or access to Knowledge among your people, etc. Many of those may not be entirely under your control, or there might be good reasons not to maximize Science because of nasty side-effects: like making your society open to New Things and outside influences and finding that means they will not be satisfied with their leaders, government, or society and so you have revolts and revolution and civil war: the extra Science may be not worth the price.
And, @Eddie Verdde , there are several places for the 'random event' to affect things: aside from the Unexpected Scientist/mechanic/tinkerer that affects your research, a climate event, neighbor's action (and 'neighbors' includes Camps, 'Outposts', Tribal Huts, City States, and any other 'Non Major Civ' players on the map) and any of a host of other Events and Decisions (to use a good old EU term) could affect Needs, Requirements or Research at almost any time.
Such an interesting discussion! If I'm following correctly the premise is that the science yield and tech tree it provides for abstracts too much away from how scientific progress actually works in real life. This thread is an attempt to remodel technological progress in a way that is more historically accurate and engaging for the player.
Within the context of this game which uses a science yield and a tech tree. We can adapt the system to make it more engaging. 1 idea more in line with Eureka's is to make Great people take an active role in shaping research. Great people can add new bonuses/buildings/units For example:
in the renaissance era, there could be a Great Engineer called Orban. He's ability could be to give your civ access to a new stronger Bombard called Dardanelles Gun @Gunpowder.
in the classical era, there could be a Great Scientist which improves farm yields by 1 food
Essentially you research a tech then dive deeper and explore the tech through Great People to make the tech more powerful. You want to play as a nomadic horse centered group. Perfect! recruit Great People who improve pastures and cavalry units. Just off the top of my head.
Great Scientist: Pastures provide +1 production
Great General: Cavalry units +1 movement
Great General: Cavalry units + 3 combat strength
Great Engineer: new building unlocked @Horseriding, Breeding Grounds: Accumulate +2 horse per turn
tldr: I believe we can make research feel more unique and active by having Great People directly impact your civ's research and cultural tress by providing bonuses and buildings/units to techs and civics.
Within the context of this game which uses a science yield and a tech tree. We can adapt the system to make it more engaging. 1 idea more in line with Eureka's is to make Great people take an active role in shaping research. Great people can add new bonuses/buildings/units For example:
in the renaissance era, there could be a Great Engineer called Orban. He's ability could be to give your civ access to a new stronger Bombard called Dardanelles Gun @Gunpowder.
in the classical era, there could be a Great Scientist which improves farm yields by 1 food
Essentially you research a tech then dive deeper and explore the tech through Great People to make the tech more powerful. You want to play as a nomadic horse centered group. Perfect! recruit Great People who improve pastures and cavalry units. Just off the top of my head.
Great Scientist: Pastures provide +1 production
Great General: Cavalry units +1 movement
Great General: Cavalry units + 3 combat strength
Great Engineer: new building unlocked @Horseriding, Breeding Grounds: Accumulate +2 horse per turn
tldr: I believe we can make research feel more unique and active by having Great People directly impact your civ's research and cultural tress by providing bonuses and buildings/units to techs and civics.
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
I don't know if anyone remembers Evil Genius, but it had an interesting take on research. First you would need an older more primitive item. Then a scientist unit would have to walk around and physically "examine" the thing, then he would tell you what possible upgrades there were, and then you would need one of several research machines, and use them in a particular sequence in order to research the new item, and you could also spend money to narrow down the specific sequence you were supposed to use to invent the new item. The experimentation was totally goofy and random as to how it worked. But it really did emphasize the "trial and error" involved in research, more so than simply expending science "points" that you accrue to magically "discover" a technology that is so common in strategy games.
https://evilgenius.fandom.com/wiki/Research
maybe something similar can be tried in Civilization
1. you would need manpower devoted to research instead of doing something else unrelated like farming or fighting wars.
2. you would need one copy of the older item
3. you would need machines and raw materials to do the experimenting on it.
4. you would need incentives like gold investment, or knowledge bought from someone else, to speed up the process
say if a scientist entity of some sort says I could build a better ship out of my cog...a galleon! I would need cannons, wood, horses to haul around the material, sailors to man the vessel, etc. I would need a place to combine these ingredients, like a workshop and a harbor. I could fail if I did not use the right amount of ingredients and in the proper sequence (randomized in each game). But I could spend money to narrow down the possibilities and finally create my galleon.
https://evilgenius.fandom.com/wiki/Research
maybe something similar can be tried in Civilization
1. you would need manpower devoted to research instead of doing something else unrelated like farming or fighting wars.
2. you would need one copy of the older item
3. you would need machines and raw materials to do the experimenting on it.
4. you would need incentives like gold investment, or knowledge bought from someone else, to speed up the process
say if a scientist entity of some sort says I could build a better ship out of my cog...a galleon! I would need cannons, wood, horses to haul around the material, sailors to man the vessel, etc. I would need a place to combine these ingredients, like a workshop and a harbor. I could fail if I did not use the right amount of ingredients and in the proper sequence (randomized in each game). But I could spend money to narrow down the possibilities and finally create my galleon.
Lonecat Nekophrodite
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2019
- Messages
- 2,835
1. If Chinese didn't invent firearms then who's the first to make a ones with trigger? Spanisn? or Germans?
2. With packed earth walls built by Chinese (and maybe other asians and Indians as well) Siege (and city assaults) are heavily discouraged by authors of Asian and Indian military treatises. Sun Tzu even quoted that it is the worst and should be used where no other winning options left, he didn't even mention any details how to do siege or to take a city, he emphasized very heavily on battles over various terrains and manuevers so that numbers aren't everything. He even encouraged commanders to lure enemy city defenders to fight in an open field 'just outside a city' and thus a city can be taken by just marching into. Or other different alternatives to run down enemy morale / will to fight and make use of attritions against enemy, ones that will force a favorable peace deal like city transfers as a spoils of war. or even subjugations / assimilations once enemy lost a big battle at the openings. I'm not sure of Qin Shi Huang united China with sieges but Liu Bang 'conquers on the open field. First when he joined Xiang Liang rebellions and eventually joined a 'Race to Xiong Yang' which both Liu Bang and Xiang Yu ended Qin rule by winning a string of victories, which depleted Qin army to the point that the city surreneded to Liu Bang without a fight (And the following party incident that began a chain of events which would eventually turned Liu Bang against Xiang Yu.). And later after Xiang Yu proclaimed himself Chu Ba Wang (Hegemon King of Chu) came Liu Bang second rebellion, which he eventually won in Ganxia and thus ousted Chu Ba Wang without marching towards his capitol. Two centuries later in what's called Three Kingdoms. again. War tricks were used ALOT. including evacuation of a city before enemy could march in, this is a psychological warfare that an empty fort / city is an entrapment, from what I read on the Three Kingdoms the attacker reeled.
In case that sieges did happen, siege engines used there focused on either neutralizing defenders or to break open city gates./ portculis.or to scale walls. Chinese (and shortly later Japanese and Koreans,) preferred mobile ladder carriage, mobile moat bridge carriage, traction trebuchets,
https://www.alamy.com/ancient-chine...world-florence-italy-1843-image211094608.html
from what i've read, Chinese heavy armor was worn mainly by cataphracts but i'm not sure when was these cataphracts began to show up in China but they shown up alot in Three Kingdons.
3. In addition to relatively lightweight armor used in Asia (I'm not sure if Chinese pikemen also wears scalemail or splintmail metal armor too? googling doesn't show much, Jap samurais are very obivious that they favor light armor made with minimal irons, (and thus it is hard to determine what should 'Japanese Knights' （日本の騎士) really wear? but I think there's reason why Samurais wear lighter armor than Chinese Cataphracts particularly those of Tang and Song era) (not to mention Euro Knights in full plate mail)--Japan had (and still has to) import irons. There ain't much natural resources there, particularly in their Middle Ages. Japanese preferred sources of Iron were and still China.
But i'm not sure if the Chinese foot sloggers didn't wear heavy armor is the same reasons why they have crossbows early--These are a large army of peasant levy, only a very small fraction in the army came from Warrior Caste, and this caste wasn't much promoted in China compared to Japan.
Eddie Verdde
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 85
Just to keep things clear: personally, I'm only concerned with historical accuracy in the sense that technological progress should be conditioned by several factors, but not necessarily in the sense that it should follow a historical, euro-centric sequence. Just to give another example: why should knowlege of "mathematics" be a prerequisite for "engineering" or "navigation"? Incan were perfeclty able of building complex structures and Maori sailed through the Pacific without knowledge of "mathematics" such as we conceive it today. The history of humankind is the history of getting solutions to problems and you don't necessarily have to rely on scientific knowledge to get to those solutions. A lot of technological progress happened simply by the accumulated empirical knowledge of laymen and craftsmen, not just "wisemen" or "men of science", and certainly not always to fulfill "his majesty's desire".
What I find most funny in playing civilization is that if offers me the opportunity to simulate the historical process in different ways, creating endless of "what if" scenarios. So I'd be totally ok with a civ having knowledge of gunpowder in 500 BC or another civ having knowledge of steam power in 500 AD, as long as it didn't mean that 2 centuries later you'd be landing in the moon, because that assumes a streamlined and deterministic vision of history and neglects that fact that civilizational progress is much more than the build up of technological discoveries. Historical progress has ups and downs, and sometimes things evolve in unpredicted (and upredictable) ways. In the 1950s people imagined that by 2000 we'd all be traveling in airborne automobiles and colonizing the moon. But no one predicted the internet, for instance. And when the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence in the 18th century, inspiring people throughout the world, who would have guessed that 150 years later european countries would forgo freedom in favor of totalitarianism?
The mechanics of Civ favors a deterministic path that mimics history as we know it. I suppose it would be fun if a different, more complex approach was tried. On the other hand, I think it's important to keep in mind that every game is an abstraction of reality, so it would not be cool if a new tech-tree mechanics became "realistic" to the point that the player became overhelmed with the number of things too consider before making a decision. This sounds like a contradiction, but I believe it's not, because a reform in tech-tree mechanics would imply a balance between complexity/immersion and enjoyable gamplay, and that's the big issue. I suppose that adding a bunch of new techs or creating new pre-conditions to "research this" and "develop that" could be easy, but the real challenge is to do that in a balanced way, that keeps the player engaged and still allows him to enjoy the game without having to spend a lot of time micromanaging or without rushing to victory in a mechanical and preset way.
Last edited:
Indeed!
I find the premise a bit unclear, as sprung out of a discussion thread and turned into an idea/suggestion thread. It may work, though some aspects I'd like to discuss won't fit the topic, so thereof I think I'll start a proper discussion thread.
Will that argument ever grow old? It's as crude and inaccurate as what it's trying to target.
It's rather a written historical, latin-centric sequence.
Because that's the scientific way to look at it? One-timers are wonderful, but to master you have to repeat.
Those are exceptions and not that good examples. So Maori did sail halfway through the Pacific without perish. Were they the only ones trying? Would their wayfinding techniques work in a very non-pacific ocean like the Atlantic?
I don't think so.
Also, there's no technically nor technological limits ingame for Maori or any other civ to island hopping around the world without a knowledge of navigation.
I doubt no one..
Spoiler from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet :
Though free thinking would rarely be considered a featuring civic tied to that age; and based on your next assertion, that reminds me of how polarized USA have become. Glad you guys are still standing unitied in the opinion that civ is utterly euro-centric..
Sure, if that's how it all happened, then Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan is 100% accurate.
I think there are several fundamental concept issues that indirectly havoc the current concept of tech progression.
- The turnbased strategical/tactical mishmash
- The map scaling/usage inconsequences
- Other things like how resources being used
If divided into Strategical turns and Tactical/Operational (in-between) turns, then both time and map scaling could work well together during events. Then I think a player's decision making wouldn't feel less engaging if an organic tech progress would hardly allow beelining a tech superiority of several eras ahead (comparing to a rivaling neighbour civ), but just a few techs.
I think that could work great within (my suggested) event turns.
But more of that in another thread..
About the "needs" driving research (I like the way you link them back to '4X'), in game design that could be translated into having a possible "unlocking" event and/or then the "research" itself, ie different yields (getting points from terrain, building, action, etc...), with techs being defined by their affinity with each yield type, and, as a consequence, tech progression being applied on multiple techs per turn ?
To still allow some control by the player, in my mod you still select the next tech to research, that tech get all points it can from the yields that can contribute to its progression, and when you have yields that do not contribute to that tech, they are shared between unlocked techs they can contribute too.
Which leads to another element I've developed in my mod while I was experimenting with events/action creating points for various "research fields" (the 4x in you case, the expanded "military", "craftsmanship", "economy", etc in my mod): one of the issue with the above is that you are frequently in a position where you have research field producing yields that can't contribute to any of the unlocked techs available at that turn.
Which raised the question of what to do with the unused yields at the end of a turn ?
I'll skip the details, but storing them with a decay value is the answer I've chosen, and I added "knowledge" resources in the mod to "store" those yields, with decay value depending on the resource type.
First it was a class of resources("human knowledge", "tablets", "books", etc... and thanks to SQL coding, the mod generate automatically one resource type per existing tech) working the same way, but IIRC during the discussion about the implementation, someone (was it you @Boris Gudenuf ? or @Knasp ?) mentioned something like "it's not books that generated research points, but men".
So I made the "human knowledge" resource special and renamed it "scholars". Unlike the other "knowledge resources", the mod also create scholars type for each "research field"
Now, in most cases, when an action/event/building generate yields for a specific tech or research field, those are not directly applied to a tech item, but generate scholars in cities, with a cap based on the city size.
The mod affect a "literacy" value to each city, which is then used to determine how much points are generated for each unlocked techs at the end of a turn (then a "decay" is applied on the scholars)
And I've kept the other "knowledge resources" for tech diffusion, tablet and books relative to a tech are generated in cities (in my mod resource stockpiles are local, not global) after that tech has been researched.
The knowledge resources are then part of the trading network, and when you manage to get those resources for tech types you've not researched yet in a city, scholars for that tech start to be generated in that city, and, if that tech is unlocked, research point for the tech.
Which in turn lead to another issue raised in this topic, the need to keep the player informed of what's going on in the background, which I try to do in the mod's UI, but it's not a side of modding I'm confortable with.
To clarify, I'll try to illustrate anyway with a few screens from my current test game.
In the one below, you can see that the current item I've selected in my "Development Tree" is "Mining", but that "Astrology", "Irrigation" and "Large Wheel" show progression too.
Spoiler :
The tooltip on "Mining" shows the current contribution to its progression:
- (scholars in) Craftmanship with 49.93 points (with a max of 100 coming from that research field, but it could have been capped at a portion of the research cost)
- Scholars (specific to mining) with 23 points / 100 max
- Academic research, the usual civ6 "science per turn" value, with 14 points / 100 max (well, it's displayed, but for academic research I can't cap that value with the current modding capabilities anyway)
Now let's have a look at the Irrigation tooltip:
Spoiler :
No academic research for Irrigation as this tech was never "actively" researched (ie selected by the player), but scholars (formed from working plots with farm on wheat and working an unimproved sugar plot) will be enough to research it passively.
And for a last example on the tech tree UI, see the Astrology tooltip:
Spoiler :
It shows that scholars in "Inspiration" (mix of civ6 "culture" and "religious") and "Exploration" have contributed, and also that they can individually contribute to a maximum of 75 research points each to the tech, so you need a bit of both for a completely passive research in that case.
I've also tried to make the information available on the top screen, for example the Science tooltip shows a (partial) prediction of next turn research:
Spoiler :
You can see where are the scholars working on unlocked techs, how they are formed, and how much they will contribute to the research next turn.
The "Bronze Working" section here is incorrect BTW, something I need to fix, as even if my civ is forming scholars in that tech (At this point from studying bronze equipment captured when clearing Barbarian camps and brought back to cities over units supply lines...), those scholars don't generate any point toward that tech, as it's still locked (mining not researched yet)
But when it will be unlocked, they'll do, I like how the mechanism allows a kind of pre-boost before you can even research something.
There are also tooltips for each specific research field, for example for "Craftmanship"
Spoiler :
Scholars in that discipline are formed from buildings in cities (in my mod there are ancient buildings like "Stonemason" or "Carpenter" that generate points for "Craftsmanship")
As the current research item ("Mining") can get contribution from "Craftsmanship", the 3.9 research points will be added to that tech (else they would have been shared between the unlocked techs linked to craftsmanship)
Finally there is also some local information on one of the cities tooltip (initial W.I.P.)
Spoiler :
IMO this illustrate one of the challenge for a tech tree revision, my version is "just" changing the way research is applied, if you add to the mix a research/application separation or even more complex mechanisms, I've no idea on how to represent it to the player, that should be something to keep in mind (and how complex it could be for the AI on another note)
Last edited:
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Very Important Point: One of the primary things that has to be done is to determine what knowledge is required to do something. IS "mathematics" required for Navigation? Is Astronomy? Is Astrology a prerequisite for any of them? Before anybody can sit down and design a Tech Tree/Bush/Polydodecahedron these relationships (or lack of them!) have to be determined.
To quote Stephen Hawkins: "I'm working on that" - my Tech/Historical Timeline 60,000 BCE to 2020 CE is now up to 180 pages and nowhere near done . . .
As Technology progresses, the number of prerequisites for whatever you want to do also grows - I think that may be some kind of Basic Rule. So, making and using a Wheel may require only some knowledge of woodworking, woodworking tools (copper, stone, obsidian) and a lot of flat terrain that wheels can roll over carrying Stuff (I suspect there we have the reason the first wheeled vehicles show up in the Ukraine rather than in the Alps). To develop that Wheel into an automobile (to take an extreme example) requires a motive source (internal combustion, external combustion, sails, and rockets were all tried) and all of its prerequisites, and a steering mechanism, and road-building to make it useful. A Raft of different Technologies, some of which (road-building, for instance) were not 'researched' with the automobile in mind at all.
Predictions succeed or fail based on the prerequisites for what somebody is trying to predict. Flying Cars, to take a common example, pre-supposes a three-dimensional traffic control system and people willing to be trained in how to use and obey it. Neither happened, so delete Flying Cars.
The Enlightenment thinking that produced the Declaration of Independence and (in France) the Rights of Man was to solve the then-common problems of Monarchial government versus the increasing economic and military power of non-monarchial elements in the societies. Europeans (and others) today are not embracing totalitarianism, they are embracing individuals who claim to have All The Answers. Almost as soon as Cleisthenes established the 'extreme' form of Athenian Democracy in the 4th century BCE observers warned about the dangers of the Demogogue who would gain control by promising the electorate whatever they wanted to hear. People forgot the warning, so they are repeating the mistake, as almost every 'democratic' or purportedly democratic society has ever since.
The "balance between complexity ... and enjoyable gameplay" is always individual to each player, but in general, it is the most critical thing to keep in mind. I have played 'simulations' that sacrificed everything to precise reproduction of every element in the decision-process, and will never willingly do that again!
The trick, I think, is to keep as much of the complexity as possible Invisible to the gamer. He doesn't have to explicitly know that developing an Automobile requires The Wheel, Internal Combustion, Steel, Rubber, Oil, Mechanical Engineering, Road Building, Electricity, Industrialization, and Great People like Daimler, Ford, and MacAdam. He just has to know that at a certain point after developing X percentage of all those "powered wheeled vehicle" will pop up as a possible solution to the problem of moving (trade) goods and people or Military Units and it will require access to Steel and Rubber resources, among other things. After playing the game a few times he will also (if he doesn't know enough History already) realize that it will result in changes to the way his cities expand, the economic, social, and cultural aspects of his society, and the expense in Resources and Gold required to build and maintain his shiny new Mechanized Military Units.
In other words, every problem has several solutions (railroad is also a possible solution to Moving People and Goods and 'automobile' can be powered by Steam as well as Internal Combustion engines) and every solution has more than one Effect, some of which are somewhat removed and subtle - and not necessarily desirable.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
So far, my thoughts are that the 'unlocking' would be the determination of a Need. Based on your current Tech Level (Neolithic and on) certain 'solutions' would present themselves. You could try 'researching' them (applying 'Science' resources to them) without the Resources, but it would be very, very hard - 'theoretically' trying to figure out how to work Copper without having any Copper to practice on would not be easy, and it would get harder as the new Techniques get more complex. Having the Need and the Resources then any Prerequisite Technology would have to be addressed, but now I'm thinking you would not even get displayed the potential Tech Solution until you had one of those.
This opens up the possibility of the Potential Research Path changing in every game based on the situation:
Need: Better weapons against our perfidious Neighbors/Barbarians/Woolly Mammoths
Solution 1:
Have access to Copper and Pottery with Kilns:
Bronze Weapons: short sword, axe, spear, helmets, cuirass, greaves, bronze-faced shield
Solution 2:
Have access to Horses, The Wheel, Leather and largely flat terrain between you and Perfidious:
Spoke-Wheel Fast Chariots
Solution 3:
Have Access to Leather, Wood, and heirarchial society
Massed Archers
So, based on your In-Game Situation, you may get a different 'Solution' every time, and if you don't have a Need (like, no Neighbors at all and no Mammoth-Sized Game to hunt) you may not develop 'advanced' Weaponry or military for a good long time.
That had to be @Knasp: it's too good a quote for me to have forgotten I made it!
For those who have not done so already, may I suggest that @Gedemon's Mod at Gedemon's Civilization, a total overhaul project
is an incredible piece of work, in which he has already examined and implemented many potentially fantastic changes in Civ play. Any discussion of potential changes in the game should start by examining the work he has already done.
Hehe I will use this quote elsewhere..
Eddie Verdde
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 85
I agree.
That would help a lot in gameplay experience because many players feel overwhelmed with too much information or too many things to consider. Moreover, in real life a lot of events or situations unravel without anyone exactly being able to explain how. It would add some element of surprise that would definitely enrich gameplay, but at the same time developments would make sense. E.g.: a player suddenly knows that its craftsmen invented a more efficient way of making big stone structures, and now he's able to build city walls and pyramids; that should come as no surprise, because its people have been working a quarry-tile right next to the capital for more than a century. Or: after years of going to the sea in fishing boats, your people mastered the art of navigation and are now able to sail farther from the coast.
For instance, each coastal tile would generate points towards sailing-related techs, but the exact numbers and progress would be invisible to the player. Of course with so many cities next to the coast, deep down he would know that seafaring was a cultural-trait of his people and that expertise on sailing-related techs would unravel sooner or later. But he wouldn't know exactly when. And if he was in a rush and thought it was taking too long, the player could speed up research by assigning wise-men to the task, if certain other pre-conditions had been met.
I also find this system very interesting. A combination of both would be the ideal mechanics for research development, IMO.
Last edited:
My knowledge of games is not that deep but I don't know of any other game franchise that has improved on the system that civ came up with. Perhaps there is but I'm guessing civ would adopt if there were.
I have this crazy idea of building a technological progress map with hexagons. Each would represent either a Research (those piles of beakers), Eureka, and the actual technology. Fill in all the sides of a technology with the connected Eureakas and Researches (insert better word here) and you get that technology. For example Celestial Navigation starts off with two connections of a research hex and a Eureka hex. But if you go into the Medieval Era without that technology another research or Eureka hex connection is added.
Similar threads
