Why Tech tree is so stiff?

[hokath]

I think a lot of these ancient era changes grew out of the upgrade ruin being very strong (e.g. archer in composite bowman). Of course at the moment only recon units can pick up ruins, but that might not stick around.

I agree it is weird that you can make a chariot archer before you can make an archer. I guess you can argue the bows they are using are initially very primitive, and its the chariot part that is doing the real damage, whereas an archer-archer is using a studier equipment that gives them that +2 range.

But I can suspend my disbelief for these tech progression things. It's a game and it's not aiming to be an accurate representation of the possible paths technological development could theoretically have taken, eh? If you're looking for that level of RP then probably you're looking for a different 4X than VP, and that's ok.

 

[Vantucci]

I think a lot of these ancient era changes grew out of the upgrade ruin being very strong (e.g. archer in composite bowman). Of course at the moment only recon units can pick up ruins, but that might not stick around.

I agree it is weird that you can make a chariot archer before you can make an archer. I guess you can argue the bows they are using are initially very primitive, and its the chariot part that is doing the real damage, whereas an archer-archer is using a studier equipment that gives them that +2 range.

But I can suspend my disbelief for these tech progression things. It's a game and it's not aiming to be an accurate representation of the possible paths technological development could theoretically have taken, eh? If you're looking for that level of RP then probably you're looking for a different 4X than VP, and that's ok.

Why not just disable the upgrade reward from ruins if people thought it was too powerful?

Sure you could argue that, but how do you argue having a chariot before inventing the wheel?

Instead of being required to suspend belief, why not change the mechanic of techs? Since a lot of the techs don't make sense in VP, why not just give upgrades and buildigns as you hit certain amount of science? For example, you hit 100 science, so you gain this building, and this unit. Hit 200 science and you gain this building and this unit? IMO, that makes more sense than making the techs no longer a choice and not making sense. It sounds like people don't pay attention to the techs anyways, so just have a single progression of tech.

 

[CppMaster]

Why not just disable the upgrade reward from ruins if people thought it was too powerful?

Sure you could argue that, but how do you argue having a chariot before inventing the wheel?

Instead of being required to suspend belief, why not change the mechanic of techs? Since a lot of the techs don't make sense in VP, why not just give upgrades and buildigns as you hit certain amount of science? For example, you hit 100 science, so you gain this building, and this unit. Hit 200 science and you gain this building and this unit? IMO, that makes more sense than making the techs no longer a choice and not making sense. It sounds like people don't pay attention to the techs anyways, so just have a single progression of tech.

So removing the tech tree completely and making it a linear progression? That removes a lot of strategy and is less fun. I'm against it.

 

[Vantucci]

So removing the tech tree completely and making it a linear progression? That removes a lot of strategy and is less fun. I'm against it.

I don't disagree, but what strategy is left with it being so ladder like? You research animal husbandry only to find no animals nearby, so you completely wasted all that science when you could have been researching something USEFUL.

 

[CppMaster]

I don't disagree, but what strategy is left with it being so ladder like? You research animal husbandry only to find no animals nearby, so you completely wasted all that science when you could have been researching something USEFUL.

The strategy is in the decision in which order do research technologies. The fact that sometimes it may not pay off to a degree you hope for doesn't change that.

 

[Vantucci]

The strategy is in the decision in which order do research technologies. The fact that sometimes it may not pay off to a degree you hope for doesn't change that.

I call that luck rather than strategy. Strategy is seeing you have cows and gold in your city limits and choosing between animal husbandry and mining because you want to utilize one resource before the other.

I like a lot of what they did to the game, but the tech tree is just too cookie cutter and unrealistic for me. I'll probably just do my own edits to the tree. We'll see how it goes.

 

[CppMaster]

I call that luck rather than strategy.

There is no luck in the decision itself. Luck/unluck may be in the outcome. It's like when you build military, because you suspect that you'll need to defend, but then there is no war and those resources could have been spent on sth else.

 

[CppMaster]

@Recursive can we un-archive this thread since the discussion is continued?

 

[Vantucci]

It's like when you build military, because you suspect that you'll need to defend, but then there is no war and those resources could have been spent on sth else.

That I believe is strategy, because you are actively choosing to protect your land, and you are gaining something and choosing that over other options. Being attacked is always a possibility and eventually protection will always be needed. I will grant you that you never know how much you may be attacked, buta lot of that is in your control through diplomacy. Barbarians are always a threat though (unless you turn them off of course).

Another example is being required to research sailing on a land map is not strategy, it's just silly. This of course is also required in BNW, but not for a long time, but at that time you can fly through them quickly so not too much time is wasted on them.

Don't misunderstand me. I'm by no means trying to say BNW was perfect, but I did like that most of their techs and their progression made sense. I would ALWAYS initially research the techs that were required to utilize the resources I started with close by. That is what I call strategy rather than "hoping" you have some cows or sheep that suddenly pop up in your land.

 

[Vantucci]

@Recursive can we un-archive this thread since the discussion is continued?

Forgive me, as I am new to the forums. What does unarchiving do?

 

[azum4roll]

You can already sort of guess your starting bonus resources.

More tundra/forests/jungles -> Trapping
More desert -> The Wheel
More hills/grassland -> Animal Husbandry
More plains -> Animal Husbandry or Trapping
More coast/no obvious terrain -> Go for your luxury/UU/UB tech

 

[Vantucci]

You can already sort of guess your starting bonus resources.

More tundra/forests/jungles -> Trapping
More desert -> The Wheel
More hills/grassland -> Animal Husbandry
More plains -> Animal Husbandry or Trapping
More coast/no obvious terrain -> Go for your luxury/UU/UB tech

True, but there is still hoping that some are there. Personally, I turned on the bonus resources at start, so the resource issue is a moot point for me. I am just playing devil's advocate at this point and using it as an example. It is still valid for other techs and trying to use strategy.

BTW, thank you for adding the option.to show from game start.

 

[CppMaster]

Being attacked is always a possibility

And getting a bonus resource is also a possibility.

Another example is being required to research sailing on a land map is not strategy, it's just silly.

I agree, it would be cool if you could completely ignore sailing on a land map, so only sea related techs require it.

 

[CppMaster]

Forgive me, as I am new to the forums. What does unarchiving do?

Moving this thread from Archive to the main folder, so it has more visibility, so here:

 

[Vantucci]

And getting a bonus resource is also a possibility.

Ooops, sorrry I hadn't slept at all yet, my reply made no sense. "always possible" is kind of an oxy-moron in this case. I meant to say you will always be attacked at least by barbarians, unless you turn off barbarians, so imo building units is never a bad thing, especially when you can gain culture, gold, etc depending on the polocies you strategically choose.

whereeas with the resources, it is possible you never end up with one of them, which to me is luck rather than strategy. But that is why I turned them on, and I'm glad you can do so.

 

[CppMaster]

I meant to say you will always be attacked at least by barbarians, unless you turn off barbarians, so imo building units is never a bad thing, especially when you can gain culture, gold, etc depending on the polocies you strategically choose.

That is just wrong. There is plenty of time, when producing units is a suboptimal choice. If you only end up invaded by barbarians then you don't need many units, but when you expect an invasion from a powerful empire then you may produce a lot of army, which may not pay off if you won't get attacked. Either way, both preparing for war and tech choice may involve luck in the outcome, so there is no significant difference in that matter.

 

[Vantucci]

That is just wrong. There is plenty of time, when producing units is a suboptimal choice. If you only end up invaded by barbarians then you don't need many units, but when you expect an invasion from a powerful empire then you may produce a lot of army, which may not pay off if you won't get attacked. Either way, both preparing for war and tech choice may involve luck in the outcome, so there is no significant difference in that matter.

I agreed with that further up. I was just trying to make the difference of you know you will be fighting something from the beginning due to barbarians. You don't know you'll be using animal husbandry, possibly for the entire game. Personally, I will always choose the path of knowing I need it.

In reference to not knowing how many units you need, like I said previously, that will have a lot to do with diplomacy, but also scouting will also give some valuable intel. It is much easier to defend than attack as well, so I tend to go more military tech and units if I decide to go on the offensive, which often is based on the resources I start with.

It's ok we feel different about it, and it very well may be why they gave the option to reveal the resources at game start, so let's not beat that horse too death too much.

I agree, it would be cool if you could completely ignore sailing on a land map, so only sea related techs require it.

What are your thoughts on how it should look? Would you separate it back out like in BNW? More so that you aren't required at all to research the top line? I'm curious, because I am starting to do my own changes to the tech tree. This is one of the priorities, because I prefer to play land maps and I cringe every time I have to research to build ships. LOL

 

[CppMaster]

More so that you aren't required at all to research the top line?

This. The easiest would be just to remove some connections in the tree.

 

[Vantucci]

This. The easiest would be just to remove some connections in the tree.

OK. I'll look at it deeper. Definitely have to move stuff around, because in VP philosophy is how you build triremes. I'll probably base it off the top row of tech off BNW tree.

 

[azum4roll]

Pasture resources are everywhere, and there's always a possibility you end up having horses.
The same can be said for any ancient T1 tech. Unless you play OCC or something, you will have use for those techs.