dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Eliminating tech trading completely, though, is pretty unhistorical and unstrategic. I think there's a balance to be found (there have been multiple answers already.)
Techs and Tech Tree Changes
- Thread starter PeteAtoms
- Start date
Hi dh_epic,
Whatever historical or strategic values you found with tech trade, the below few facts is obvious:
1) It makes diplomacy outweights science research. (to a greate extend)
2) It forces human player to switch focus from the map to a pop up screen every turn
3) Firaxis can never code the AI to trade tech in a smart way (so does anyone else)
The basic consideration to sell a tech is to a) WHICH tech to b)WHOM, c)WHEN and d)AT WHAT PRICE
Tech trade is too complicated to be good. If AI is set free to decide the a) to d) then human player can only act after a tech has been sold by one AI player to the other AI player(s). Little can be done except reload a save game and sell before the AI. do. (Many will call this exploit)
The fact is, you don't know who is going to sell which tech to who, the whole thing is unpredictable and uncontrolled AND is therefore not strategy relevent
I am sorry but many good suggestions to improve "tech trade" is no other than narrowing the scope (or setting some limitation) of either or all of the a), b), c) and d).
But I know for sure one thing Farixis is able to do and will make everyone happy, give us an option to turn Tech Trade ON/OFF. This is especially important for people like me who never mod a game...
Whatever historical or strategic values you found with tech trade, the below few facts is obvious:
1) It makes diplomacy outweights science research. (to a greate extend)
2) It forces human player to switch focus from the map to a pop up screen every turn
3) Firaxis can never code the AI to trade tech in a smart way (so does anyone else)
The basic consideration to sell a tech is to a) WHICH tech to b)WHOM, c)WHEN and d)AT WHAT PRICE
Tech trade is too complicated to be good. If AI is set free to decide the a) to d) then human player can only act after a tech has been sold by one AI player to the other AI player(s). Little can be done except reload a save game and sell before the AI. do. (Many will call this exploit)
The fact is, you don't know who is going to sell which tech to who, the whole thing is unpredictable and uncontrolled AND is therefore not strategy relevent
I am sorry but many good suggestions to improve "tech trade" is no other than narrowing the scope (or setting some limitation) of either or all of the a), b), c) and d).
But I know for sure one thing Farixis is able to do and will make everyone happy, give us an option to turn Tech Trade ON/OFF. This is especially important for people like me who never mod a game...
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Rather than taking a defeatist attitude that the problems from tech trade cannot be solved, I'd like to just out a "strawman" idea -- as we sometimes stay in the biz.
What if you can trade military techs, productivity techs, construction techs? And, on the other hand, you can't trade social techs, or governments, or religious techs, or even commercial techs.
The idea being that you can teach a primitive civilization how to manage nuclear weapons, but you can't teach them to be free.
Plus if you add this to branching dilemmas... (e.g.: Taking one branch gets you tech A, then B, then C, then D; another branch exists that gets you D and A right away, but B and C aren't in that branch and thus you miss out on those techs until later.) -- then trading for a military tech "too soon", without going through the social techs and government techs that would democratize your society more, you would miss out on the chance to really progress *socially*.
Damn, I have to be able to find a better way to explain this. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? I'm trying to explain how you can a nation who discovered Nuclear weapons in a democratic society, and another nation who has Nuclear weapons but seems unable to become democratic (even if they know what democracy is).
What if you can trade military techs, productivity techs, construction techs? And, on the other hand, you can't trade social techs, or governments, or religious techs, or even commercial techs.
The idea being that you can teach a primitive civilization how to manage nuclear weapons, but you can't teach them to be free.
Plus if you add this to branching dilemmas... (e.g.: Taking one branch gets you tech A, then B, then C, then D; another branch exists that gets you D and A right away, but B and C aren't in that branch and thus you miss out on those techs until later.) -- then trading for a military tech "too soon", without going through the social techs and government techs that would democratize your society more, you would miss out on the chance to really progress *socially*.
Damn, I have to be able to find a better way to explain this. Does anybody know what I'm talking about? I'm trying to explain how you can a nation who discovered Nuclear weapons in a democratic society, and another nation who has Nuclear weapons but seems unable to become democratic (even if they know what democracy is).
Hi dh_epic,
Please allow me to append something to my previous post and it is a suggestion to Firaxis and not mean to go against your idea:
"But I know for sure one thing Farixis is able to do and will make everyone happy, give us an option to turn Tech Trade ON/OFF. This is especially important for people like me who never mod a game..."
AND
put up a POLL at the passive Civ3 official site (or may be in this forum), check how many will vote to turn it OFF.
Please allow me to append something to my previous post and it is a suggestion to Firaxis and not mean to go against your idea:
"But I know for sure one thing Farixis is able to do and will make everyone happy, give us an option to turn Tech Trade ON/OFF. This is especially important for people like me who never mod a game..."
AND
put up a POLL at the passive Civ3 official site (or may be in this forum), check how many will vote to turn it OFF.
sealman
Hater of Babylonians
You can't turn tech trading off. It is too much of a strategic element to the game. For example, I can really use that extra gold and resources so that I can upgrade by navy, but do I really want to teach the AI about physics??
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Your logic is faulty, because hardcore players aren't representative of average players, and average players aren't representative of the new audience they want to reach for Civ 4. We aren't the only people that they want to reach.
Not to mention that given a gameplay feature that needs modification, I'll choose making it more meaningful and more balanced over killing it altogether -- every time.
Not to mention that given a gameplay feature that needs modification, I'll choose making it more meaningful and more balanced over killing it altogether -- every time.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
OK, I think I can see where you're coming from dh_epic, and I do kind of like it! If I do understand you correctly, you are saying that your 'practical' techs can be traded, but not your 'airy-fairy' ideas techs, like religions, artistry and governmental! In principle it is good, but with a few caveats:
1) How do we simulate the way in which certain nations have forced smaller, less powerful nations, to change government and/or religion-if we can't give them the techs necessary for them?
2) I think that military techs should only be tradeable with civs you are in an alliance with OR, if you can trade them with other civs, then your people will become VERY angry with you if you trade them to a non-ally!
3) In civ3, I believe that techs become easier to learn the more civs that already have it. I think this could be retained in your system, but with the following modifications. (a) The 'number of Civs' ONLY applies to civs you are in contact with via a trade network. (b) Military techs only recieve HALF the bonus and (c) Cultural/Civic techs recieve a double bonus (given the historical ease with which 'Ideas' travel along trade routes.
Anyway, any thoughts on this guys?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
1) How do we simulate the way in which certain nations have forced smaller, less powerful nations, to change government and/or religion-if we can't give them the techs necessary for them?
2) I think that military techs should only be tradeable with civs you are in an alliance with OR, if you can trade them with other civs, then your people will become VERY angry with you if you trade them to a non-ally!
3) In civ3, I believe that techs become easier to learn the more civs that already have it. I think this could be retained in your system, but with the following modifications. (a) The 'number of Civs' ONLY applies to civs you are in contact with via a trade network. (b) Military techs only recieve HALF the bonus and (c) Cultural/Civic techs recieve a double bonus (given the historical ease with which 'Ideas' travel along trade routes.
Anyway, any thoughts on this guys?
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Håkan Eriksson
Commander of the Swedes.
I like the idea of not researching for a specific tech but to research in a specific genreal category.
I'm thinking of haveing categories like:
- Mathematics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- Physics
- Technology
- Social studies
- Economics
- Military strategies
etc.
And for instance to get the tech Genetics you would need to have very high values on all nature like areas: Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Technology. But you wouldn't need anything at all in the military strategy field.
Also I would like to reintroduce some randoness to it. Makeing it so that for example it's not absolutely sure that you will get the tech of Advanced Armor when you have reached 300 in technology and 250 in military strategies. But haveing that as a minmum. Then it's random if you get it after that.
I'm thinking something like this:
Technology: 300
Military Strategies: 250
25% chance of getting Advanced Armor
Technology: 320
Military Strategies: 270
50% chance of getting Advanced Armor
Technology: 340
Military Strategies: 290
75% chance of getting Advanced Armor
Technology: 360
Military Strategies: 310
100% chance of getting Advanced Armor
And when you get realy high up you should get nice future techs.
I'm thinking of haveing categories like:
- Mathematics
- Chemistry
- Biology
- Physics
- Technology
- Social studies
- Economics
- Military strategies
etc.
And for instance to get the tech Genetics you would need to have very high values on all nature like areas: Mathematics, Chemistry, Biology, Physics and Technology. But you wouldn't need anything at all in the military strategy field.
Also I would like to reintroduce some randoness to it. Makeing it so that for example it's not absolutely sure that you will get the tech of Advanced Armor when you have reached 300 in technology and 250 in military strategies. But haveing that as a minmum. Then it's random if you get it after that.
I'm thinking something like this:
Technology: 300
Military Strategies: 250
25% chance of getting Advanced Armor
Technology: 320
Military Strategies: 270
50% chance of getting Advanced Armor
Technology: 340
Military Strategies: 290
75% chance of getting Advanced Armor
Technology: 360
Military Strategies: 310
100% chance of getting Advanced Armor
And when you get realy high up you should get nice future techs.
Darksoul_CG
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2004
- Messages
- 12
dh_epic said:
Are u sure?Do u think they would understand what does mean "nuclear fission",what is a proton,and why radiations make people ill?I don't think so,if u put it in those terms.
A primitive man couldn't understand if someone would have tried to explain them how to buold aircrafts,but in the XIX century it would have been learned.So i think that tech trade should be limited on ages...to buy a tech it must be of our "age level" or below;so to teach a primitive nation what is nuclear power,u should help them to reach a modern knowledge and educational level.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Yeah, you have a point. I should phrase myself more eloquently and precisely. I didn't mean primitive like stone age, but primitive like middle age.
There ARE some social fundamentals that do need to be in place for the most advanced of military technologies. You'd have to be able to convince somebody that the world is made up of tiny particles called atoms, which would be especially hard if they were particularly superstitious. God knows you couldn't teach or get them to embrace genetic engineering if they were stark creationists.
But that's what I mean by there being very basic social prerequisites for other military technologies. And there should be a fast and dirty route to get a military technology, and a more organic naturalized way that gets you some of the democratic and social technologies along the way.
I think history kind of reflects this, with some nations having advanced weapons and being regarded as socially "backwards" (to use a eurocentric term i'm slightly uncomfortable with).
There ARE some social fundamentals that do need to be in place for the most advanced of military technologies. You'd have to be able to convince somebody that the world is made up of tiny particles called atoms, which would be especially hard if they were particularly superstitious. God knows you couldn't teach or get them to embrace genetic engineering if they were stark creationists.
But that's what I mean by there being very basic social prerequisites for other military technologies. And there should be a fast and dirty route to get a military technology, and a more organic naturalized way that gets you some of the democratic and social technologies along the way.
I think history kind of reflects this, with some nations having advanced weapons and being regarded as socially "backwards" (to use a eurocentric term i'm slightly uncomfortable with).
