New tech tree - why oh why?

Arkatreides · November 20, 2001, 06:12

Ok, so I am a bit of a history buff, but am I the only one who thinks that the new tech tree is completely unhistorical, unintuitive and downright ridiculous? The tree in CIv2 was quite realistic, ok sometimes it was necessary to 'think out of the box' to follow some of the dependancies but it general it reflected more or less human history.

The Civ 3 tech tree however is just plain wrong! And what's more, there are just too many advances that 'do nothing'. Civ2 had those too but they were at a minimun whereas here they are just littered all over the place.

My question to Firaxis is: Why did you change the tree? It certainly was NOT broken and with the rearrangement of just a few advances you could have easily incorporated the current era structure into the old tree. This area of the game definitely feels unfinished ... (did we run out of time by any chance?)

I definitely will make good use of the rules editor and change it back to what it was in Civ2!

Archmage · November 20, 2001, 06:23

I'll tell you one Civ NOT to research. Advanced Flight. It's not a prerequisite for anything and all you get out of it is Helicopter and Paratrooper. The Strategy Guide says not to research Republic either unless you use the Government type.

Dis · November 20, 2001, 06:44

It definately has some problems

I can see what they were trying to accomplish though. They were going for play balance (sound familiar?). And yes even realism. In civ2 you could bypass several paths and go for very modern techs without knowing some ancient stuff. So what they did to help alleviate beelines, was to make 4 ages where most techs are necessary to get out of the age.

I actually like the age requirements. They reduce beelines that were overpowering by the human in civ2. Although I agree that many techs are worthless, and are essentually place fillers that are prerequisites for other techs.

Another reason is simplicity. Like combat they wanted this game to be simple for the average gamer (they don't care about us hardcore guys

). And they save money by not having to publish a poster.

but I don't have too many other complaints about the tech tree.

Arkatreides · November 20, 2001, 06:51

I never said the eras were bad, in fact I really like them and I agree with your beeline comment. All I said was that there was no need to take the tech requirements from Civ2 (which were sensible to some extent) and completely restructure them. As I said I will work on a mod that changes it back to how it was in Civ2 (with a few exceptions).

Dis · November 20, 2001, 06:53

I haven't looked at them real closely. I may have to break the well used civ2 poster out again

. At first glance they seemed similar.

Stuff2 · November 20, 2001, 07:05

I think that the reason for that (useless techs) is simply beacouse they have looked at the tech model from the wrong view. The best way to get a good tech tree is simply to list all improvements, units, wonders and political options etc that should be included in the game, and first after that they can decide in what order the units and improvements and stuff should appear in the game and finally after that it's time to put names on the techs. Also the number of techs compared to civ2 has decreased not increased. Civ2 had 89 techs.
I would rather had seen a game where every unit, improvement ,government type etc would have it's own prereq tech. It would be more fun trading tech knowing that every tech will give you a specific benefit.
In short, they should have based the tech-tree on the game instead of basing the game on the tech-tree.

Arkatreides · November 20, 2001, 07:07

I give you an example that strikes me as being much less intuitive then before:

Monarchy: Now Warrior Code and Polytheism
Used to be: Code of Laws and Ceremonial Burial

I truly ask WHY? Polytheism was definitely not linked to monarchy. Or if it was, then so was Monotheism. Warrior Code? Well I cannot really see how such an advance can help the advent of monarchy.
In Civ2 however, both prerequisites made sense: Monarchy was linked to 'religion', the King often being the messenger of the deity on earth and the Code of Laws brought structure to the society.

Arkatreides · November 20, 2001, 07:16

Of course, the other reason all the techs are the way they are is because they wanted a nice, disentangled tech tree.

SuiteSisterMary · November 20, 2001, 09:50

Quote:

I truly ask WHY? Polytheism was definitely not linked to monarchy. Or if it was, then so was Monotheism. Warrior Code? Well I cannot really see how such an advance can help the advent of monarchy.

If you say 'british monarchy' instead of 'monarchy' then you'd be right.

Arkatreides · November 20, 2001, 17:47

Ok, I'm working on the tech tree - does anyone know how to ADD new technologies (and maybe units) as opposed to just renaming and reordering them?

Pyrodrew · November 20, 2001, 18:19

Philosophy use to give a free tech to the 1st Civ to discover it... now it appears to do nothing.

Arkatreides · November 21, 2001, 05:20

*bump*

LaRusso · November 21, 2001, 06:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Philosophy use to give a free tech to the 1st Civ to discover it... now it appears to do nothing.

its useless

go crafts!

Zanzin · November 21, 2001, 06:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Arkatreides
*bump*

Naughty, no bumping

Peterk · November 21, 2001, 09:21

Mind you...most of the dead-end techs give you a wonder chance , and usually a pretty high-culture wonder (Hanging Gardens - Republic, Bach's Cathedral - Music Theory), so you should really think about whether you want to skip a tech like this. If there's a chance at the wonder I usually go for it.

Arkatreides · November 23, 2001, 11:32

Well, here is my reverted tech tree for the ancient times. Two new advances (pinched from the middle ages) are Military Organisation (<-Printing Press) which allows you to build things like Legions and War Chariots for all Civs (btw I swapped Horse and Chariots again) and Seafaring (<-Chemistry) which allows you to build the Lighthouse.

Polytheism is no longer needed to advance so it is a bit useless now. I thought moving the Oracle but that makes the Oracle too worthless. So maybe we need a new wonder (Pantheoon?)

I believe this tree is much more intuitive. Any comments are welcome.

Cian McGuire · November 23, 2001, 15:21

Quote:

Monarchy: Now Warrior Code and Polytheism
Used to be: Code of Laws and Ceremonial Burial

I truly ask WHY? Polytheism was definitely not linked to monarchy. Or if it was, then so was Monotheism. Warrior Code? Well I cannot really see how such an advance can help the advent of monarchy.
In Civ2 however, both prerequisites made sense: Monarchy was linked to 'religion', the King often being the messenger of the deity on earth and the Code of Laws brought structure to the society.

Well, take a look at all the early monarchies- they were almost all based on a view that the King was the earthly messenger or even avatar of a Sun God- only in Greece was this pattern really broken in the ancient Middle East until the development of the Hebrews, but even then they only changed it from a god to The God.

Arkatreides · November 23, 2001, 17:19

Which is my point, no? Anyway the real thing that bothers me is that code of laws is missing as a monarchy prerequisite.

Deathray · November 23, 2001, 18:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Arkatreides
Well, here is my reverted tech tree for the ancient times. Two new advances (pinched from the middle ages) are Military Organisation (<-Printing Press) which allows you to build things like Legions and War Chariots for all Civs (btw I swapped Horse and Chariots again) and Seafaring (<-Chemistry) which allows you to build the Lighthouse.

Polytheism is no longer needed to advance so it is a bit useless now. I thought moving the Oracle but that makes the Oracle too worthless. So maybe we need a new wonder (Pantheoon?)

I believe this tree is much more intuitive. Any comments are welcome.

Swap chariots and horsemen back again. Chariots should come first. Chariots were employed in battle first as they gave a stable platform from which to fight. It wasn't until the development of stirrups that horses were used in battle, and then horses were more effective.

Horses are more effective in battle than chariots as with chariots you need two horses and a wooden bit, and if anything gets broken then the whole thing is out of the battlefield. With horses then you have two horses, and if one gets taken out then the other is still moving. Plus the horses move faster without having to tow the wooden bit, and the platform for a chariot is quite expensive, so you would get more horses for your cash.

Cian McGuire · November 23, 2001, 18:17

Quote:

Which is my point, no? Anyway the real thing that bothers me is that code of laws is missing as a monarchy prerequisite.

Not at all:

1. Warrior Code was where the King's family (and subsequently the King) was chosen from. A people followed a powerful warrior.

2. Polytheism- in order to consolidate his claims to lead, a King usually made a tie between himself (sometimes symbolically, sometimes literally- by assuming godhood) and the King of the Gods- thus acting as an alliterative metaphor between how the Gods have a ruler and the people do.

If anything Code of Laws should come after Monarchy- frequently the King set down what should become law throughout his realm; for examples Hammurabi and Draco (though he was technically only a 'tyrant' he fulfilled any and all roles that a king typically does) stand out.

The main tie between Code of Laws and Republic exists due to that most famous of the ancient Republics, Rome- the Twelve Tablets which codified the law of Rome set the stage for the Senate.

Arkatreides · November 23, 2001, 18:39

Deathray: Thank you for the info. That makes sense and I will chance it back!

Cian: Thank you for the info as well. What you say is actually quite true in some cases. I hadn't thought about the warrior king scenario and instead focused on medieval kings (you know the overweight inbred ones that couldn't lift a sword if their life dependet on it) and since this is Ancient times Monarchy I agree with you.

Dienstag · November 23, 2001, 20:13

Getting past the ancient times, does anyone else think it is absolutely appalling that you can build aircraft carriers before the discovery of Flight?!?

Minister of Defense: Sir, I suggest we build large, expensive ships with flat tops, and no significant guns.
You (before discovery of Flight): You're fired!

Also, I would mind if there was a way to avoid having B-17s land on carriers....toggle the 'carrier-based' flag in my dream editor.

Arkatreides · November 23, 2001, 20:23

I haven't quite got to Industrial ages yet but I already spotted a few 'mistakes' ... like Steel no longer requiring Electricity. :hmm:

TechWins · November 23, 2001, 21:02

The Printing Press wasn't even discovered until the Renaissance age by Gutenberg, yet you have it listed in the Ancient age.

You should also make Polytheism a Prereq for Monarchy. A unit for Polytheism could be an elephant.

Republic should also have the Prereq of Philosophy, in that a Republic was a philosophy of how a society should be ran. Plus it would also increase the importance of Republic.

Instead of having Mysticism and/or Literature make Philosophy become available, have Polytheism and/or Literature make Philosophy become available. This would add some balance to the tech tree.

Chemistry also shouldn't be included in the Ancient era.

Now Monarchy shouldn't be a requirement tech to continue on to the Middle Ages, but make it so that Monarchy is a Prereq for Feudalism. This will make it so that no matter what you will eventually have to discover Monarchy. I believe something like this must be done with all techs.

Terser · November 23, 2001, 21:03

I would imagine that a lot of those "empty" advances will be filled by new units/wonders/city improvements in the inevitable expansion.

Cesa · November 23, 2001, 21:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Arkatreides
Well, here is my reverted tech tree for the ancient times. Two new advances (pinched from the middle ages) are Military Organisation (<-Printing Press) which allows you to build things like Legions and War Chariots for all Civs (btw I swapped Horse and Chariots again) and Seafaring (<-Chemistry) which allows you to build the Lighthouse.

Polytheism is no longer needed to advance so it is a bit useless now. I thought moving the Oracle but that makes the Oracle too worthless. So maybe we need a new wonder (Pantheoon?)

I believe this tree is much more intuitive. Any comments are welcome.

You shouldn't be able to discover printing press without being able to write

But good work anyhow.

Cian McGuire · November 23, 2001, 21:08

Quote:

Cian: Thank you for the info as well.

My pleasure- I look forward to seeing your work, and I'm just aiming to make it more historically accurate than it is

As for the Steel/Electricity I'd take a look at what goes into the forging of steel. Yes, great amounts of power are needed, but that could be provided with steam or wood power- hell, they knew of a primitive steel as far back as 1200 BC in Egypt and they even had larger, better steel manufactories in medieval times- Toledo, anyone?

Now, I don't advocate making Steel a Middle Era advance, as the smelting forges of those times only reached approx. 700 degrees Celsius, while pure iron melts at about 1500 degrees. The really important revolution in the production of steel didn't come about until Sir Henry Bessemer perfected his technique of removing carbon by introducing oxygen into the smelter in 1855 and it wasn't until the 1870's rolled around and Edison and Swan perfected Faraday's dynamo that electricity was widely used.

Cian McGuire · November 23, 2001, 21:19

Quote:

The Printing Press wasn't even discovered until the Renaissance age by Gutenberg, yet you have it listed in the Ancient age.

Yeah, that's something you're going to want to look into

Quote:

You should also make Polytheism a Prereq for Monarchy. A unit for Polytheism could be an elephant.

I won't really get involved with new units and what not, but I will just say that I see no reason why belief in a pantheon of gods allows one to build elephants, especially in areas where they are not indigenous. India's Elephant covers that quite nicely, methinks.

Quote:

Republic should also have the Prereq of Philosophy, in that a Republic was a philosophy of how a society should be ran. Plus it would also increase the importance of Republic.

Yes, it should, I think the original tree does quite admirably in regards to Republic's immediate prereqs.

Quote:

Instead of having Mysticism and/or Literature make Philosophy become available, have Polytheism and/or Literature make Philosophy become available. This would add some balance to the tech tree.

Bu then you run the risk of too closely tying the Monarchy and Republic branches together- they're supposed to be a one-or-the-other relationship early on, and I agree- that adds a bit of strategical choice and keeps the gamestart tech flow varied.

Quote:

Chemistry also shouldn't be included in the Ancient era.

No, it should not- I would say add in a tech into the Middle Era and entitle it 'Alchemy'. It would allow a new Wonder, 'The Philosopher's Stone', which acts as a commerce draw a lá the Colossus, and Alchemy should be the new end for the Colossus with Flight negating The Philosopher's Stone. This would be a direct requisite for Chemistry.

Quote:

Now Monarchy shouldn't be a requirement tech to continue on to the Middle Ages, but make it so that Monarchy is a Prereq for Feudalism. This will make it so that no matter what you will eventually have to discover Monarchy. I believe something like this must be done with all techs.

I'm not sure if I agree with that "all techs" tenet, but yes, Monarchy should be required to research Feudalism, while allowing Republics to bypass pikemen and gun for Gunpower if they so choose.

Admiral PJ · November 23, 2001, 22:03

Well the civ3 tech tree seems ok,
polytheism and warrior code are correct for monarchy, but I think Monarchy should be a requirement for going to the middle ages, feudalism shouldnt be possible without monarchy.
I do like the techs having different research sizes for the actual diffculty to discover, civ2 just had each level getting a bit higher.

Overall the tech tree is the only problem i have with civ3, it should have at least twice as many techs, with more intermideries.
Its good they have scientific theory.
Civ2's tech tree needed improving, though it did seem to make a lot of sense.
I prefer my tech tree i made for a civ2:TOT mod, i might try and put this onto civ3, it was based on the extra unit mods.

Scouse Gits · November 23, 2001, 22:30

In any game you have to suspend some belief! Whilst I like the realism of the Civ Games you will never be able to achieve total truth in a tech tree. Chess is no less a game because Bishops can only move along the diagonals - so Civ 3 is no less a game because of some perceived anomalies.

I don't know the Civ 3 advance chart too well yet, but the system of advances in Civ 2 was well thought out … even though Ironclads could be produced without ever researching Iron Working

-------------------

SG(2)