 |
| |
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Thread from the old BB
Tech. Tree - Should it be completely known?
by Mark Everson posted 4/6/99 12:45:55 PM
As I currently have the tech tree, it is known exactly what technolgies/advances are prerequisites for which
others. Both the govt (player) and the people contribute to tech research. The people's contribution depends on
the culture, merchant connections to other cultures, and tax rate among other things.
In Clash v0.05 I already have a random factor so you never know exactly when a tech will be ready (read
accepted by your culture enough for it to be used). I am planning on one interesting twist. If the govt or people
feel threatened seriously enough to risk something new, it can accelerate the acceptance of an innovation
dramatically.
My question for the group is if the exact structure of the tech tree should be known to the player? Clearly rulers
in the past didn't know which areas would lead to gunpowder weapons (or that such things even could exist) My
question is, would it be fun, or a pain, for the player to be in some doubt as to the best path to take to get to
gunpowder, for instance? Alternatively you might have to take several shots at gunpowder before it "takes".
In Master of Orion the tech tree works such that the player may not be able to develop X technology itself.
These random blocks really make the game more fun IMO because you can't always follow the same old route
on the tech tree.
>I think that technolocical advances should be much more directly linked to what is happening in the nation than in
other games of this type. F.e. in Civ2 itīs just as easy for the Mongols, sitting in the middle of Asia, to research
Seafaring as Horseback Riding, if they so choose, which is very illocical. So, if a player builds f.e. a dockyard or
engages in some kinds of sea activites, he should get bonuses in researching navigational technologies. IMHO,
actually engaging in some activity sould be required before the player could research it. This is more locical to
me, it has always struck me as dumb in other games that you can research something without any prior
experince in that field, this sounds to me like the egg is teaching the hen and not the other way around as it
should be.
>
Hi Hrafnkell,
This situation will be addressed to some extent already by what I have in mind... I have thought that until the modern age, what the people are doing will have more effect on tech than what the government does. The importance of the people's activity in trying new things can, of course, be encouraged or more likely Harmed by the govt in various ways... For instance the extensive use of slavery by the Romans probably killed any realistic chance for them to use labor-saving mechanical devices. Also If the people are taxed too heavily they will have no surplus with which to experiment, killing innovation. Hostility to merchants, who can help bring in new ideas, will also lead to poor results IMHO. More despotic forms of government will also tend to reduce innovation.
So in direct response to the Mongols on Seafaring It would take them a loooong time. However if they conquered Korea, say, they could certainly be able to pick up the notion of seafaring. The "need" for them to try and subjugate the Japanese would give them some reason to be open to the notion of seafaring as a useful thing...
Another problem in Civ is of civs being able to pick up technologies for which they have none of the prerequisites... I don't think it is realistic to have people with renaissance technology building Bombers! The easiest way to take care of this is to rigidly enforce prerequisite technologies, and maybe even enforce a small waiting period like 5 turns for every "link" in the technology chain. This would prevent our renaissance dudes from getting a pile of tech from a benefactor civ and Immediately being able to build bombers.
However, one thing I think Civ is too strict on is in the lack of diffusion of technology. It is Very difficult to prevent knowledge from seeping across borders for very long. Diffusion would certainly increase with trade, emigration of skilled labor, and of course by spying.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glak
|
|
ahh I couldn't keep myself away from the computer, well I'll make it short. I think that there should be two kinds of prereqs. The kind that is needed to learn it and the kind that is needed to use it. I can't really think of any examples but I think you know what I mean. So like if I found out how to make planes but my country didn't know advanced metal working it would be useless. On the other hand some techs work differently. In civ you need railroad to get banking. Banking can exist without railroads so if you grabbed banking it should work unless you don't have the things that make it work (like currency).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mikael
|
|
Rio de Janeiro
Jan 1970
time: 05:13
|
|
I like the idea that you shouldn't exactly know how to get to a certain tech.It would certainly IMO add spice to the game.But how are you going to make that happen, Mark? By changing the tech tree every game(although this seems unrealistic)?
Mikael
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ladonna of Thar
|
|
Bonn, Germany
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Mark,
I've replied to one of your topics on another board just once, but your project gets me interested more every day... 
Now that I've read your thoughts about the tech tree I'm really getting interested in taking part of the deveopment... let me say something about the tech tree, first:
You are right, the concept of a rigid tech tree always struck me as not being realistic in CIV... but it was very handy for the experienced player, making it easier to plan ahead and "max out". Now, the idea I had long before (for an own game called "domination" I was never to finish):
Set different lines of invention (which is done in the newer CIV tech trees, as well). Now, when you are to decide what to research, all you can do is set the _direction_ (line) you are resarching, e.g. "economic research". You will NOT know
- what invention you will get when it's ready, since there should be alternatives
- when exactly the invention will be done (random modifier)
Furthermore, there should be a bonus/malus system deriving from the government you use, e.g. in a Theocracy, it is quite logical to research religious aspects much faster. In a tyranny/monarchy, military is enforced etc.
It may be even better if you not just had the question of "what to research now?" but have sliders for each line of inventions, e.g. you could say "spend 20% of all research on economy, 10% on military" etc. Some lines might be totally blocked for a while, e.g. a govenment like "Pacifism" would prevent you from researching military.
As for the point of e.g. lack of coastal terrain hindering researching of marine improvements... please do not forget the technical problems involved in such detailed necessities. Better have some amount of unrealism than a buggy game, hm?
There's some other thing I've pondered long before: While it is nice to reach defined steps while researching, does that mean you have to develop the same thing again and again? Do you really HAVE to discover the "Phalanx"?
My idea is as follows: Yes, you will get an advancement comparable to that in CIV, "Phalanx" (or what you might call it). But this does NOT mean you now can start pumping out the phalanxes in masses. Instead you would have to put your theoretical knowledge into a practical form, i.e. having this advancement you now can DEVELOP the unit proper and even modify it's statistics (and give it a random name/assign a graphic from a range of selections). E.g.: I develop the advancement "Phalanx". I know decide to actually use that knowledge not only to continue military researches, but indeed build some units after the phalanx model. I click on the "design unit" button - what do I see there?
Sliders with attack/defense/movement etc., all the attributes you want to assign to units. I can manipulate them in any range I'm allowed to by the advances I've made.
Now, just having researched the phalanx (or something comparable) doesn't allow much:
- the slider for attack will be fixed to "1"
- the slider for defense will have the options "1" and "2"
- the slider for movement will be fixed at "1"
- option like "can fly", "ignores city wallos" etc. are grayed out.
So I could now design just 2 different units, an A1/D1/M1 unit (the old "warrior") and an A1/D2/M1 unit (the "phalanx" from CIV). My design can be saved (and will appear in the "build unit" roster). For ease of use, standard designs should be implemented, but this way you e.g. could design something "in the middle" of phalanx and musceteer. Of course, design time and building cost must reflect the capabilities of your units.
For what all that?
a) More variety. No one is limited to pre-defined units. This is an integrated unit editor. People who shun this kind of micro-development can stick to the pre-defined designs.
b) More fun - never again will you know your enemies' units' statistics by heart - you will need to battle them first to know what they are capable of doing. That's even more true if you can assign a generic name and one generic graphic (from a selection) to any unit model.
Just imagine: Suddenly a unit called "Helios Knights" appear at your empire's border. The graphic shows a golden mounted knight... now, what might it be? Are those fast recon troops just lightly armoured? Do they wear platemail of reinforced steel? Or even that dreaded hand crossbow? You have to find out by battling them or spying on them...
Finally, this process of designing your own units strengthens one of the IMHO most important aspects of a civlike game: The identification factor. BEING ABLE TO (in contrast to BEING FORCED TO) get engaged more in the process of modelling your empire really makes you feel "this is MINE".
Btw., this approach could be true even for city improvements; you could e.g. define several qualities of marketplaces, factories etc...
Do you like this?
------------------
Honi soit qui mal y pense
[This message has been edited by Ladonna of Thar (edited May 14, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hrafnkell
|
|
Reykjavik, Iceland
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Hi Thar,
I've been thinking a bit about the research system and Iīm happy to report that my ideas are pretty much in line with yours. I havenīt made any detailed plans yet (so there is still a lot you can contribute if you like :-)), but here is a excerpt from a e-mail I sent Mark awhile ago where I outline my basic ideas.
Some thoughts on research:
Some time ago I sent you some ideas concerning research where I proposed that researchīd be divided into two categories (Tech.Advancements, TA, and Social Advancements, SA), each with numerous fields. I havenīt decided yet what the exact fields will be, but I think the TA fields will be ca. 6 and the SA fields ca. 3. Players divided their total research allotment to these fields, similar to MoO1. My thought is that each field will have itīs own Tech Level, each with ca. 3-5 research projects. Players are not forced to research every project in each field, when they have researched ca. half of the projects they gain access to those projects in the next level which they have other pre-requisites for. Pre-requsites will be based mainly on having achieved certain Tech Levels and some key discoveries. Thus, itīs possible to advance fairly fast up one field, both by diverting more research budget into that field and by picking only those projects needed to reach the next level. This gives players more control over which direction to go in, what to take and what to skip. In games with more rigid tech tree structure the only choice players have is basically what priorites to set in his research, he more or less must research everything in the end (the notably exception is MoO2, the best civ-type game yet IMHO). This also allows us to be fairly detailed in the projects, as the players donīt have to advance through each and everyone of them unless they want to. Also, it makes it easier to prohibit certain projects to a player unless he upholds certain social conditions (like prohibiting naval projects if the player has no access to the sea) without upsetting the whole tech tree structure. Finally, IMO this system should provide more fun for the players than in most games, not only will there be more choices (enhances playability manytimes), but as many projects are tied to how the situation is in the game itself players are much more aware of the relations of technological advances and historical situation, something most civ-type games (the historic ones at least :-)) donīt have.
Well, that's that. As I said, I donīt think anything has been decided on yet, so weīre still free to make any changes we want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx, USA
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Ya'll are on excellent ground with this. I like it *very* much.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hrafnkell
|
|
Reykjavik, Iceland
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Mark,
We must of course be very careful in applying free technologies, it could seriously unbalance the game and can give players a feeling of unfairness. But I agree that historically this happened. My idea is that players could aquire techs from a tech.level they have already passed. As I say above players are not forced to research every project in each tech.level before advancing to the next, so a player on tech.level 3 in, say, the Natural Science field could get for free those projects from level 1 and 2 he hasnīt researched already. This would make the 'free techs' valuable, but not overly so. It can even be reasoned that the ruler must set the stage for any cut-through techs to come into usage.
This leads to another related issue, about tech 'refining'. In MoO2 each weapon you discovered continued to improve after you discovered it, i.e. it both got cheaper with time and also you gained all kinds of extra 'abilities' for the weapon, such as Armor Piercing, Continous Fire and so on. Now, I wasnīt thinking in going into so much details in Clash (although it would be fun to do), but maybe we could make, say, three types for each tech, the first is rather expensive, the next is the 'normal' tech and the last is an improved version. These improvments would happen automatically through time/usage (i.e. the more you use it, the sooner itīs upgraded) and thus requires no special attention for the players (although we could allow players to speed up the process). It is possible to name each tech.type an independant name, example: you discover Bayonet, your first type is a Plug Bayonet, then comes the Ring Bayonet, and finally the Socket Bayonet. However, this could confuse players, I bet f.e. that many donīt know that the Ring Bayonet is superior to the Plug Bt. and inferior to the Socket Bt. So maybe itīs simpler just to name the first Early/Primitive/Protoype X, the next just stands alone (X) and the final version as Improved/Advanced/Enhanced/Expanded X. But then again maybe this is all just a waste of effort (and clock cycles?), what do people think?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Hrafnkell:
Perhaps it was a mistake calling them 'free' technologies. There are opportunity costs to the civ or government associated with allowing the people the freedom and sufficient surplus capitol to pursue ideas that result in technological or social advances.
quote:
We must of course be very careful in applying free technologies, it could seriously unbalance the game and can give players a feeling of unfairness. |
I think 'free' tech actually balances the game, as opposed to the distortions in civ. Bigger-is-better in Civ, MoO and most of the other games in this genre. That is imbalancing. Once you get behind in one of these games it is Virtually Impossible to correct it. What saves the IMO poor design is that the AI is so pathetic that even huge disadvantages can be overcome by a human player.
What the tech provided by the people would give you is the possiblility for a collection of small less-firmly-controlled states (aka Europe) to Rapidly outdistance a large autocratic empire (say China, or the Ottoman Turks) in the transition to the modern world. For the Player 'free' techs mean there is always potential to get back in the game by loosening up the hold on the people and seeing what they might come up with. A strategy that relies on luck is flawed, but when circumstances beyond your control have screwed you, it gives you one last hope to get back in the game IMO. Whether this is good or bad we can debate  .
Historically, large despotic states have been Awful at technological and social development. I am talking pre-modern world here. The kind of system where you stick in light bulbs or cash, and out comes a technological increase is for this reason flawed. There should at a minimum be a Heavy discounting of any investments made by such states, at least before the modern age. When you get to the age of R&D clearly these forces are severely weakened. That's why I take no issue with the tech model in MoO. The game takes place in an age when the benefits of investment in technology and basic science are well understood. For most of human history this just isn't so.
On the issue of tech refining, I would just have it get slightly better gradually as in MoO. This allows one to take advantage of evolutionary as well as revolutionary aspects of technology without much overhead for the player.
-Mark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hrafnkell
|
|
Reykjavik, Iceland
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
I get what youīre saying, but find it a bit strange. Frist of all, if we make some kind of a system where the right sort of society 'produces' technologies, how can we limit this to the small states? Wouldnīt it be even more unfair to have a large state crank out a lot of research on itīs own Plus getting some from their citizen? Ok, we probably could tweak the system somehow to prevent this, but we must be very careful.
Secondly, Iīm not sure giving techs to someone who falls behind (if thats what you meant, sorry if not) is such a swell idea. What kind of a motivation is that? 'Oh, well, whatīs to worry, if all hell breaks lose I just get a couple of free techs and be back in my feet in no time.' I donīt think that would be fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
These old threads are pretty interesting. There are some good ideas that have been forgotten. Also, it is good to check our models by comparing them to what people were talking about in the past. Does the current model do what people had wanted it to? I think that the current model passes this test.
Another thing I've noticed is that there used to be a lot more people posting on this forum. Today it seems like there are less then a dozen people who even keep up with the project.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
New people seem to be coming in with ideas and questions regarding Clash's technology system, so I thought it would be good to dig up this thread with its links to all of the tech threads. The modern stuff is the Demo 5 tech Tree thread and everything after it.
Please put new tech discussion in the Technology System Version 5.2 thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
bump
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-05-1999 05:33
|
|