The tech tree is silly

[Returning Lurker]

Since we can use chemistry, you could fill the balloon with hydrogen for lift (or helium - but that would be boring), and propulsion could be solid fuel rocket boosters.

I also considered that, but thought that harvesting helium deposits would require metal working which I didn't have. To tell you the truth that's just assumption, I have no idea how helium is actually acquired I just imagine it involves mining for it though if I'm wrong and it can be recovered without mining then obviously you're right and we should switch to helium since it's a much more practical method of generating lift than just hot air. As for solid fuel rocket boosters... if we can find stone both light enough to mount on the body and durable enough to take the force/heat of the fuel burning then that could work brilliantly as a means of rapid movement! Using that same stone material and your solid fuel idea we could also design a sort of stone RPG or panzerfaust type weapon for the infantry riding the thing! Much more efficient than my shortsighted grenades suggested earlier.

 

[Manifold]

In my opinion the tech tree is not thought through (gamespeed: both epic and standard the same). The first two/tree eras are ok, but at very latest with the late middle age it is possible and too easy to just jump into industrialization. There is a big hole in the techtree. And after that scientific progress is a high speed race and much too fast. There is no time for playing because my whole Civ is just trying to follow the tech progress - of course unsuccessfully.
Also the upgrade paths of the units are strange, e.g. I wonder, what crossbowmen had to do with field cannons?

In my games it was normal to have musketeers and knights in the modern age. The first time this happened I was really shocked. To see this middle and late middle age units next to my skyline was bad. It was like Civ1 but this is over 20 years ago. This aspect kills the atmosphere of the game for me in this moment.

There is a lot to do to bring this in order, but at least:
Riflemen are immensely missing.
Alternative upgrades for units like pikemen->Riflemen, knights->Cav, ....
Tech progress from the middle of the middle age should be reduced. Generally I would increase the cost of the first tech invention into a new era.
Railways???

Also it should not be possible to be much more advanced in the techtree than in the culture tree. Most inventions in history where nothing special but came in the right moment for the society sphere. I would say it should be not possible to reach a tech era that is more than 1 era in lead of the culture era.

 

[Emi999]

I'm trying to slow down the science tree research speed by lowering the amount of science points provided by each citizen. It's 0.7 now, I'll try to lower it to 0.5. My idea is that not only this slows down the research speed, but it also makes campuses more important. And it's also faster than updating all tech costs manually I have no idea how this effects the IA, though.

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

="Returning Lurker, post: 14555114, member: 291887" As for solid fuel rocket boosters... if we can find stone both light enough to mount on the body and durable enough to take the force/heat of the fuel burning then that could work brilliantly as a means of rapid movement! Using that same stone material and your solid fuel idea we could also design a sort of stone RPG or panzerfaust type weapon for the infantry riding the thing! Much more efficient than my shortsighted grenades suggested earlier.

Why stone, most fireworks - rockets, use very tightly wrapped paper/cardboard or plastic, least the cheap ones from China I get. And bigger ones use a very thin skin of aluminum holding a lot of fuel for the engines.. which are probably a bit more sturdy

 

[Esperr]

The games era are all out of whack.
It goes improvements/archers era--->industrial zone era--->factory era--->nukes/spaceship/double tourism era. The game needs more then 4 eras.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

The games era are all out of whack.
It goes improvements/archers era--->industrial zone era--->factory era--->nukes/spaceship/double tourism era. The game needs more then 4 eras.

Agree--I think the solution to this is more techs (every era should get at least 10 techs), a tech tree that does not allow quite so much beelining, and a few more units added in to fill some gaps (Riflemen? Macemen? Cuirassiers? Lancers?) Plus maybe a reduction in Eurekas. Standard speed Civ VI is feeling like quick speed Civ V to me, at least tech-wise.

Also it should not be possible to be much more advanced in the techtree than in the culture tree. Most inventions in history where nothing special but came in the right moment for the society sphere. I would say it should be not possible to reach a tech era that is more than 1 era in lead of the culture era.

I think the game tries to capture this by having some techs require certain civics to boost them, and vice versa. But I agree I would like even more on this front, to increase the interaction between the two trees. That would be nice.

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

Agree--I think the solution to this is more techs (every era should get at least 10 techs), a tech tree that does not allow quite so much beelining, and a few more units added in to fill some gaps (Riflemen? Macemen? Cuirassiers? Lancers?) Plus maybe a reduction in Eurekas. Standard speed Civ VI is feeling like quick speed Civ V to me, at least tech-wise.

There are riflemen, but at an odd place in the tech tree? Even worse is upgrading medieval knights to tanks... if you have oil. Cavalry yes, something else. Cuirassiers Lancers maybe sounds good. I thought the Civ V tech tree overdid it a bit (WWI => WW2 infantry) and was not needed. But now they seem to have gone to the other extreme.

I think the game tries to capture this by having some techs require certain civics to boost them, and vice versa. But I agree I would like even more on this front, to increase the interaction between the two trees. That would be nice.

I tend to lose interest in the Civic tree after certain key Government types, too many choices, very few of which matter at the late stage of the game.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

There are riflemen, but at an odd place in the tech tree? Even worse is upgrading medieval knights to tanks... if you have oil. Cavalry yes, something else. Cuirassiers Lancers maybe sounds good. I thought the Civ V tech tree overdid it a bit (WWI => WW2 infantry) and was not needed. But now they seem to have gone to the other extreme.


I tend to lose interest in the Civic tree after certain key Government types, too many choices, very few of which matter at the late stage of the game.

I think two-era gaps between units is excessive. Cuirassiers as a late Renaissance or early Industrial bridge between Knights and Tanks would be helpful. Something in between Horsemen and Cavalry would be good, too, though I'm not sure what you'd call it.

And yeah, I agree about the end of the Civics tree. Once I get my Level 3 Government (usually Democracy), the rest of the tree is just underwhelming. I think the policies at the very end of the tree are far too modest--they're decent, but generally not that substantial of an upgrade over the stuff you were running before. These could use a boost. I would love some policies that gave a direct combat bonus (like +10 strength to corps and armies or whatever)--something to get me really excited about getting that far in the tree.

 

[Sotof]

My preferred kind of tech tree is to have a lot of options within eras, but have era advancing require you to research at least a big majority of techs in your current era (if not all techs).

 

[Sascha77]

As pointed out by the OP; you can build Mechanized Infantry without bronze working, iron working, or metal casting.
Good luck constructing and powering such a vehicle with only stone & wood.

Hah! Re-read the OP... you don't even need the Wheel-tech to beeline mechanized inf. So I guess Fred and Barney would have to put some sort of skies under their car?

That has got to be the silliest discrepancy in the tech tree: Being able to build a unit that relies on wheeled vehicles to move around - without having to have researched the Wheel.


I didn't check how easy it is to beeline other stuff, but I did have a game the other day where Victoria had ironclads in the year 1000 AD - while my science-crazy Civ was about to get into Square Rigging. That was on "King", IIRC, so science-boosts for the AI weren't crazy high.


One of my main gripes with the tech-tree:
How is it that Archery is a dead-end? Surely, in real life, that tech lead to more advanced objects, concepts and techs, probably eventually even to stuff like ballistics or firearms. Or is the game trying to say that a stone-age bow is the same as a medieval English longbow? Or as a Hunnic composite bow?

Plus I really hate the fact that the gaps/jumps from unit to unit are wide enough to drive an aircraft carrier through them. Going from swordsman straight to musket, then straight to modern infantry. Or (even worse) straight from pikemen to AT-teams. Translated into the real world this would mean that WW1 or the US civil war were fought with pikes.

The game needs things like:
Composite bowmen (between archers and crossbowmen)
Riflemen (basically an 18/19th century gunpowder unit before WW1 infantry-tech hit)
Lancer/anti-cav unit to fill the gap between pikemen and AT-teams
Late swordsman or Maceman (equivalent to the longswordsman of Civ V, pre-gunpowder-unit but still way stronger than the early swordsman).

The funny bit is that they did include three eras of air-combat tech (biplanes to modern jets), when that stuff usually doesn't play as big a role in Civ-games (at least not in mine) as early/mid game melee and ranged units. And at the same time they've made building up an airforce quite a bit trickier than before, thanks to "Aerodrome"-districts.


S.

 

[elitetroops]

I did have a game the other day where Victoria had ironclads in the year 1000 AD - while my science-crazy Civ was about to get into Square Rigging. That was on "King", IIRC, so science-boosts for the AI weren't crazy high.

Victoria usually spams harbors and claims tons of Great Admirals. One of the Great Admirals can be used to instantly create an Ironclad. My guess is this is what happened.

 

[Jarms48]

I think two-era gaps between units is excessive. Cuirassiers as a late Renaissance or early Industrial bridge between Knights and Tanks would be helpful. Something in between Horsemen and Cavalry would be good, too, though I'm not sure what you'd call it.

I think it was a way to prevent military snowballing, so you couldn't just spam one unit and upgrade it every era. It forces you to shift between a number of units, at least for cavalry, so if you have an early horsemen advantage you then can't immediately have a knight advantage. I think they should make certain UU's as one-era gaps. EG:

- Make redcoats, and the French equivalent, a unit in-between musketmen and infantry.

 

[BigChiefLizzy]

I think it was a way to prevent military snowballing, so you couldn't just spam one unit and upgrade it every era. It forces you to shift between a number of units, at least for cavalry, so if you have an early horsemen advantage you then can't immediately have a knight advantage. I think they should make certain UU's as one-era gaps. EG:

- Make redcoats, and the French equivalent, a unit in-between musketmen and infantry.

If that was the case it was a reasonable idea, but last time I played a game of civ that required gunpowder units to have a source of saltpetre/saltpeter (nitre what, ok potassium nitrate?) was civ 3. And it was very jarring to research gunpowder, then still not be able to upgrade my units from warriors (no iron). Us humans are more inventive than that, we will find a way to murder one another

 

[UWHabs]

I think it was a way to prevent military snowballing, so you couldn't just spam one unit and upgrade it every era. It forces you to shift between a number of units, at least for cavalry, so if you have an early horsemen advantage you then can't immediately have a knight advantage. I think they should make certain UU's as one-era gaps. EG:

- Make redcoats, and the French equivalent, a unit in-between musketmen and infantry.

One issue is that horsemen to cavalry is actually 3 eras (Classic -> Medieval -> Renaissance -> Industrial), same as knights to tanks (Medieval->Ren->Indus->Modern), which makes for an extremely large gap. Knights and horsemen are effectively obsolete on the battlefield well before their replacement comes around. I can understand the point of having 2 lines and alternating their strengths, but still feels like we should have a late renaissance/industrial heavy cavalry (Cuirassier?) and a Medieval/Renaissance light cavalry (although I guess historically there really weren't a lot of light cavalry in this era, as it seems like they were more replaced by musketeers around this time).

 

[Sascha77]

Victoria usually spams harbors and claims tons of Great Admirals. One of the Great Admirals can be used to instantly create an Ironclad. My guess is this is what happened.

You might be right there. But that's still a pretty silly mechanic. A GA that gives you a free ironclad regardless of your science-/tech-/resources-situation shouldn't be available this early IMO. And since those guys are all individual units and bound to their respective era, it wouldn't be too much to ask to not have a guy like that appear this early. Just like you shouldn't be able to recruit Wernher von Braun during the Classical Era..

 

[agonistes]

Regrettably there was no real practical application for it at the time, however, it's conceivable that someone could have seen it's potential and then you're a stones throw away from having the Roman Empire with the steam engine. Granted, metallurgical advances made what we know as railroad possible, but unlocking that particular technology in 1AD (turn 115 - we should totally measure time in Civ turns!) would have resulted in a very different world.

If I recall correctly, the steam engine was used to just spin a big ball around. Interestingly, not so far away at the time, someone was using a rail system at a mine to deliver ore downhill to the bay.

 

[Jarms48]

One issue is that horsemen to cavalry is actually 3 eras (Classic -> Medieval -> Renaissance -> Industrial), same as knights to tanks (Medieval->Ren->Indus->Modern), which makes for an extremely large gap. Knights and horsemen are effectively obsolete on the battlefield well before their replacement comes around. I can understand the point of having 2 lines and alternating their strengths, but still feels like we should have a late renaissance/industrial heavy cavalry (Cuirassier?) and a Medieval/Renaissance light cavalry (although I guess historically there really weren't a lot of light cavalry in this era, as it seems like they were more replaced by musketeers around this time).

I've made a suggestion for another era in-between the Renaissance and the Industrial, the Enlightenment, I feel like this would also be an effective solution for the 3 age gap. Having a Hussar/Lances upgrade for light Cav in the Renaissance, and then have Cuirassier in the Enlightenment. That would bring a return to the 2 age gap, solving both issues. Though you'd have to have a look at the other units and bring them in-line.

If that was the case it was a reasonable idea, but last time I played a game of civ that required gunpowder units to have a source of saltpetre/saltpeter (nitre what, ok potassium nitrate?) was civ 3. And it was very jarring to research gunpowder, then still not be able to upgrade my units from warriors (no iron). Us humans are more inventive than that, we will find a way to murder one another

I feel like the best way to address this is to improve the mechanic slightly, only make units obsolete when you actually have access to the resource, as well as the technology. That way you can still build swordsmen if you have iron but no nitre, for example.

* * * * *​

Actually, a somewhat funny suggestion, could we have a religious belief/pantheon that provides us with a source of 1 Nitre? It would actually make historical sense as some countries didn't have access to nitrate, or their need outstripped supply, and the church would make it from urine to sell off. Hahaha.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I've made a suggestion for another era in-between the Renaissance and the Industrial, the Enlightenment, I feel like this would also be an effective solution for the 3 age gap. Having a Hussar/Lances upgrade for light Cav in the Renaissance, and then have Cuirassier in the Enlightenment. That would bring a return to the 2 age gap, solving both issues. Though you'd have to have a look at the other units and bring them in-line.



I feel like the best way to address this is to improve the mechanic slightly, only make units obsolete when you actually have access to the resource, as well as the technology. That way you can still build swordsmen if you have iron but no nitre, for example.

* * * * *​

Actually, a somewhat funny suggestion, could we have a religious belief/pantheon that provides us with a source of 1 Nitre? It would actually make historical sense as some countries didn't have access to nitrate, or their need outstripped supply, and the church would make it from urine to sell off. Hahaha.

Far easier would be to allow you to build units with 0 resource+encampment, but units that needed the missing resource would operate at -15 (so almost the same as the preupgraded unit)

 

[steveg700]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but isn't the basic problem with a tech tree that....it's a tree? The lines get in the way.

I mean, once you place a tech at a position in the tech tree and then start extending lines from it, it can only impact so many things--at least not if you don't want those lines to cut across other lines. If you put sailing up at the top and mining down at the bottom, for instance, then you've set up the tree to make it difficult at best for their derivatives to ever converge. You wind up with unlocking frigates that don't require knowledge of gunpowder or cannons.

The lines provide a handy visual representation, but you can also just arrange the techs by era progression without the lines and the list the prerequisites with them. That way you can ensure a mechanized infantry will, at some point, require you to know how to make steel.

 

[elitetroops]

Sorry if this has been mentioned already, but isn't the basic problem with a tech tree that....it's a tree? The lines get in the way.

I mean, once you place a tech at a position in the tech tree and then start extending lines from it, it can only impact so many things--at least not if you don't want those lines to cut across other lines. If you put sailing up at the top and mining down at the bottom, for instance, then you've set up the tree to make it difficult at best for their derivatives to ever converge. You wind up with unlocking frigates that don't require knowledge of gunpowder or cannons.

Civ IV had this sorted out. There was lines indicating prerequisites, sometimes optional prerequisites, and in addition there could be an icon on the tech itself indicating an additional prereq. These additional prereqs could sometimes be very far away in the tech tree.