Tech-tree

[icko]

Poorly chosen example.

Ahem... it was your example...

Especially if you're talking about philisophical techs -- atheism excludes religion, for example.

In a way this is already in the game; when Einstein discovered relativity he rejected some of the basic ideas of the Newtonian universe. B replaced A.

Yes, of course. so A=>B, or somethingelse=>B, and then A is obsolete. but that is different from (notA) => B

The adoption of new ideas often causes the rejection of old ones, or at least their re-organization. But to follow on this, try to imagine knowledge not as pure, discrete units progressing to a clear-cut goal, but as fuzzy ideas that interact with one another and influence each other, and may be accepted and rejected. If I accept that the earth revolves around the sun, it becomes harder to accept that the universe is centered on humans and therefore influences my theology and its cohesiveness. If I reject that the earth revolves around the sun, I may save my theology, but why should I be able to discover space flight?

again this is example only means that you only need astronomy to get to space flight. It says nothing about theology influencing space flight. What you are trying to say is that if you have astronomy you can't develop (subsequently) antropocentric theology i.e. (notB) => A.
So you can't do B->A->...->C.
But you can still go A -> B ->...-> C
(where A= antropocentric theology B=astronomy C=space flight ...=other techs) (which is what happened in RL, even for the christian fundamentalists who refused to look through Galileo telescope to preserve their beliefs)

The tech tree may not be the best way to model this, and I don't think this is a good model for civ IV, but if someone wants to mod it in, why not?

So we go back to the original point: I understand why but I somewhat miss out on how to make it look lifelike or just simply cool

I like more narmox's examples! (but I still think there are other ways to accomplish this without going into this logical hornet's nest; a suitable combination of governments and religions should be able to separate the good guys from Mordor's henchmen...)

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh hell, what have I started I guess when I wrote the post above, I was thinking about what DH_Epic was talking about in 'A Big Vision for Civ'. Namely the idea of 'Branching techs'. To be faced with critical either/or choices in history, where choosing one sends you down one divergent path, wheras choosing another takes you down an entirely different one. Its not that you can NEVER get the other tech, its just that you can't get it via research, only in trade.
The example used by DH_Epic was that of the Middle Ages, and the choices European nations faced in the light of growing peasant unrest-do you take the path of embracing democratic reform, or do you crush it and become increasingly authoritarian. The social and economic techs which underline these decisions represent the A====>C but B==\==>C (yet B====>D instead) system I mentioned. The branching techs will, in time, feed back into the main tech tree, but the specific Tech C (and all other techs on its branch) are out of reach except via trade with other civs.
Anyway, I hope THAT made better sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[mitsho]

Now I've completely lost the track ...
but nevertheless, isn't it clear that we can mod this in with Python, if we want to? Thus, I'm eagerly looking forward to see this in a game so I can get this picture also. I want to understand

mitsho

 

[JavalTigar]

Did any of you ever play Masters of Orion 2? There was a similar concept in that game.

Unless you had a certain trait (Creative) it was impossible to learn all techs.

You could study Interphased Fission theory, and maybe you would learn how to get better Interphased Engines for your ships, but not how you could use the same tech to make Plasma Torpedos.

Really made things interesting.

Plus I loved their diplomacy, with the ablity to make another race surrender to you. Basically became a vassal, you got a % of the GNP and never had any disputes with them for the rest of the game.

 

[narmox]

Plus I loved their diplomacy, with the ablity to make another race surrender to you. Basically became a vassal, you got a % of the GNP and never had any disputes with them for the rest of the game.

Well a bit off topic for the thread, but I never liked this concept, especially the "for the rest of the game" part. This is a game lasting millenia.. No civ is vassal of another for that long.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Vassalage would NEVER be permanent-IMHO-particularly in a game like Civ. Of course, it needn't be, any more than MPPs, trade deals or alliances are. They should merely be an acknowledgement of a more powerful civ, where you accept short-term 'bondage' in return for them NOT destroying you. Of course, the balance of power can change a LOT in the course of even a single age of a Civ game, and a former Vassal can rise up and throw off their shackles-and perhaps even come to dominate their former domitor.
Still, the option for such agreements should DEFINITELY be in the game-given how well a similar system worked in SMAC.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[JavalTigar]

I agree that maybe it shouldn't be for the rest of the game. But the mere fact the AI would admit defeat when it was overwelmed, I found refreshing when compared to CIV2. The AI in CIV2 would fight to the death even when their spearman couldn't clog up the tracks on my tanks fast enough.