Technology tree thoughts

[Schuesseled]

I'm a bit bored, so I have decided to try and figure out all the things on this tech tree. These are only my educated guesses for the most part.

Ancient Era

Pottery - Granary (Building (B))
Animal Husbandry - Horse (Resource (R)), Pasture (Improvement (I))
Archery - Archer (Unit (U))
Mining - Mine (I), Woodchopping ability
Sailing - Work Boat (U), Galley (U), Lighthouse (B), Fishing Boats (I)
Calendar - Stonehenge (Wonder (W)), Plantation (I)
Writing - n/a, n/a, n/a, Policy (Edit:/ Picture 1 appears to be a man, perhaps a scholar of some sort is ultised in the game, Picture 3 a Building with Pillars, Maybe a wonder of some kind. Surely Writing may still allow the building of Libaries, Perhaps the building was this.)
Trapping - Trading Post (I), Camp (I)
The Wheel - Chariot (U), n/a, Road (I)
Masonry - Wall (B), Pyramids (W), Quarry (I), Junglechopping ability
Bronze Working - Axeman/Spearman (U), Barracks (B), Colossos (W), Improved Woodchopping

Classical Age

Optics - Great Lighthouse (W), Policy
Philosophy - n/a, Temple (B), Oracle (W), Policy
Horseback Riding - Horseman (U), n/a, Circus (B)
Mathematics - Catapult (U), n/a, Garden (B)
Construction - This looks like the resource people have been referring to as aluminum or saltpepper, Great Wall (W), Policy
Iron Working - Swordsman (U), n/a, n/a, Iron (R)

Medieval

Theology - n/a
Civil Service - Pikeman (U), Citzen Itzcha (W), Policy
Currency - n/a, n/a, n/a, Gold Production / Trading
Engineering - n/a, Fort (I)
Metal Casting - Forge (B), n/a
Compass - Harbour (B)
Education - n/a, n/a, n/a, n/a, Research Pacts / Production
Chivalry - Knight (U), Castle (B), n/a, Policy
Machinery - n/a, Policy
Physics - Trebuchet (U)
Steel - Longswordsman (U)

Renaissance?

Astronomy - Galleon/Frigate (U), Observatory (B), Policy, Policy
Acoustics - Theatre (B), Sistine Chapel (W), n/a
Banking - Bank (B), n/a
Prinitng Press - n/a
Gunpowder - Musketman (U)

--

N/A means i didn't want to hazard a guess, I have no idea what those are.

 

[Ahriman]

I'd be surprised if construction didn't let you get some city walls. Theology would give cathedral I guess? Temple building goes somewhere here... or from a Piety social policy?

I'd be surprised if currency didn't give a market, or education a university.

It is all disappointingly... vanilla though. Nothing here we haven't seen before except "trapping", which is pretty ridiculous as a civilization advance (that happens *after* animal husbandry?).

 

[tom2050]

I agree, it seems bland, un-original to a new Civilization, and just boring. They could have at least, changed some of the names, included new buildings that haven't been used before that do new things.

Lack of imagination from Firaxis? "Playing it safe" cannot be the answer, because they aren't playing it safe on anything else.

 

[Silverdawn]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

 

[tom2050]

In that case, why even make a new civ game.. to only play with better graphics? That is boring. The exact same tech tree is also boring.

It's so they can at least add some variety and something new to a new game. I will take it that the tech tree is just in an alpha stage still, and hasn't been completed or even worked on to any extent yet.

 

[bjbrains]

In that case, why even make a new civ game.. to only play with better graphics? That is boring. The exact same tech tree is also boring.

It's so they can at least add some variety and something new to a new game. I will take it that the tech tree is just in an alpha stage still, and hasn't been completed or even worked on to any extent yet.

Wait, what? In one thread you talk about how it's too simplified and not as complex as civ 4 (Without any basis). Now you talk about how it's the same game as Civ 4? That's not even internally consistent, let alone logical/rational. (I'm pretty sure a new gamemap, a new combat system, unique civ bonuses, social policies changing how gov't and culture are used, and twists on diplomacy/the AI will make the game different. In fact, the only thing that Firaxis has said they haven't changed is great people).

 

[Thyrwyn]

...Great people changed, too. No longer a random roll to see which you get They haven't said what does determine which you get. . .

 

[bjbrains]

...Great people changed, too. No longer a random roll to see which you get They haven't said what does determine which you get. . .

True enough. He specifically said though that's one of the few systems that underwent few changes though (Since Firaxis thought Civ 4's GP system worked so well).
My point still stands though. It'll be a very different game from Civ 4. The base "Civilization" design is still there, but so many of the systems have been reworked.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Sorry, bjbrains, I was in no way trying undermine your argument - I am in complete agreement with you. In fact, after watching the GDC scalability talk, I can state with complete assurance this will be a very different take on our favorite game.

It will still be Civ - but it will be different.

I can't wait

 

[tom2050]

Wait, what? In one thread you talk about how it's too simplified and not as complex as civ 4 (Without any basis). Now you talk about how it's the same game as Civ 4? That's not even internally consistent, let alone logical/rational. (I'm pretty sure a new gamemap, a new combat system, unique civ bonuses, social policies changing how gov't and culture are used, and twists on diplomacy/the AI will make the game different. In fact, the only thing that Firaxis has said they haven't changed is great people).

Referring to the tech tree here, you are mixing everything together into a confusing jumble. I was referring to Macromanagement vs Micromanagement and how the inner workings of the game's complexity do not necessarily mean the game will be complex to play. Sorry if you did not understand it. It may have been unclear. Macro usually equals an easier game to play, without being possibly frustrating to casual gamers (this DOES NOT MEAN it can't be a good tactical game; easy to play/tough to master). Micro is more for hardcore players that like clicking a thousand times per turn. I fall in the middle. Civ 5 is going from the middle more to the Macro side.

Combat is new, Social policies are new, AI is new.
Civ Bonus' are nothing new, Diplo is nothing new to any huge extent, GP not new.

I agree, not everything will be new. I don't have a prob with that.

Tech tree looks a little too similar IMO; that was all I said, and that is what I think. No need to get all fussy about it. A little change and something new to the tech tree that is noticably different would be a good thing (maybe).

Something as simple with rearranging, using different wording, different aspects of history, not so linear research model. Nothing to hate about any of that, is there?

 

[Svip]

Considering all of the other stuff they have changed in Civ5, I am glad something stays as it is. With a new tile system, management of cities, combat system, social policies and however all of the other new stuff works, I am glad to have something familiar when I get my hands on this game.

Besides, I cannot really see how you can do that much change to the tech tree, it is just well established history and what we know to be the most important breakthroughs in human history. A personal reaction to the lack of dead-end techs; I am somewhat pleased, but generally did not bother me all that much. I never really researched them anyway; I have had many games without Horseback Riding.

And as far as micromanagement goes, I think actually there will be plenty of micromanagement in Civ5, it's just not forced upon casual players. But I know too little on this subject to actually make a scale prediction on micro/macromanagement for Civ5.

 

[Ahriman]

Considering all of the other stuff they have changed in Civ5, I am glad something stays as it is.

This is entirely reasonable. I think half the problem is that I've forgotten how bland vanilla Civ4 tech is, because I've spent the last ~3 years playing mods.

 

[Schuesseled]

@ people complaining at seeing Physics and Steel early in the tech tree.
You need to use google more, Steel was not invented late in our history of civilisation, niether was physics only just discovered.

The earliest known production of steel is a piece of ironware excavated from an archaeological site in Anatolia (Kaman-Kalehoyuk ) and is about 4,000 years old.

Ancient Greek physics mainly started with Archimedes and his mechanics of the lever and hydrostatic discoveries.

Physics and Steel are not modern discoveries, however we have made modern improvements, such as the Physics of splitting the atom, or the Modern Steel we use in construction today. This does not mean however that Civilisation did not come across these things long ago.

 

[Ahriman]

We don't need to use google more; its not that we're not aware of technological developments, its that we see different advances as being the most important..

We simply think that the Steel tech should represent mass-produced Bessemer steel (huge effect on industrialization!), not having some steel for weapons, and we think that physics tech should represent Newtonian physics (the birth of all modern physics and the first real unified theory) and not be in the 12th century (what major developments in physics were there then?).

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You tube vid here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCm5KxM_2nY

Seems to confirm a single level 0 starting tech.

Actually, I think the "Level 0" tech might be "Civilization"

with other "Level 0" techs being
"Militaristic City-State"
"Cultural City-State"
"Maritime City-State"
"Barbarian"
(and all invisible because you can never get them)
and because they have no prerequisites, they are unresearchable

They did indicate that city-states would have their own tech trees.

And Tech-trading is out.

 

[tom2050]

If tech trading is out the door, this should mean that AI bonus are also out the door (most of them at least). Otherwise tough difficulties become even more an unlevel playing field.

 

[Ahriman]

If tech trading is out the door, this should mean that AI bonus are also out the door (most of them at least).

This is illogical. I am sure that on high difficulty settings the AI will still get some bonuses to research rate, just like they do to hammers and gold.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If tech trading is out the door,

Has been confirmed

this should mean that AI bonus are also out the door (most of them at least). Otherwise tough difficulties become even more an unlevel playing field.

I'm sure they will have AI bonuses, I'm also sure they will be balancing the bonuses given to the AI at various difficulty levels based on Civ 5 gameplay and not on Civ 4 gameplay.

And if 'Deity' level is impossible for a human player to win without getting lucky... well its Deity level isn't it.

 

[Schuesseled]

Actually, I think the "Level 0" tech might be "Civilization"

with other "Level 0" techs being
"Militaristic City-State"
"Cultural City-State"
"Maritime City-State"
"Barbarian"
(and all invisible because you can never get them)
and because they have no prerequisites, they are unresearchable

They did indicate that city-states would have their own tech trees.

And Tech-trading is out.

would be interesting to see if a mod could unlock the possibility of playing as a city-state that could be fun.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

would be interesting to see if a mod could unlock the possibility of playing as a city-state that could be fun.

Well, actually Playing as a city-state might be hard...
Accessing the City State Techs... something else (although City-State Techs are probably pretty cheap)