fix civ2's tech tree

[The diplomat]

This has probably been said a thousand times already but there are a few glaring inconsistencies in the civ2 tech tree, that I think should be fixed for civ3:

It does not make sense to me that:

-"pottery" is a prereq for "seafaring"
-"engineering" gives King Richard's Crusade.
-"medicine" gives Shakespeare"s theatre.
-"communism" gives UN wonder
-"labor union" gives the mechanized infantry unit.
-"polytheism" gives elephant unit.
-"polytheism" is a prereq for "monotheism"
-"democracy" is prereq for "conscription"
-"automobile" gives battleship unit.

To fix these, you would need to rearrange things a bit, add a few new techs but it would not require anything radical.
For example, the tech "polytheism" should make the new SE option of polytheism available. The elephant unit would come with the "horseback riding" tech.
I would suggest a new tech entitled "theatre" which would grant the Shakespeare's theatre wonder. The tech "theatre" could have "literacy" and "philosophy" as its prereq.
The tech "medicine" instead could have the benefit of X% less chance of disease for the player that has the tech.

A lot of you probably think I am nitpicking, I just think civ3 will be more interesting if the techs make more sense.

Maybe, if we are really lucky, Firaxis is planning on a brand new tech tree for civ3. That would of course be better than just tweeking the tech tree of civ2!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited June 06, 2000).]

Nitpicking? I think not. These are faults of Civ 2 that are underestimated and I'm glad you brought them up. This was discussed before and I'm going to try to remember some other faults that were pointed out with the tech tree...

Alphabet - prereq for mapmaking (Don't need letters to make a map. Especially primitive maps)
Code of Laws before writing? (How ya gonna write them down?)
Mapmaking give trieme? (You don't need to know how to make a map before you can float in a boat)

There's many more but I can't remember them now. Maybe I'll look for them later. I suggest Mech infantry comes from Automobile and Battleship comes from Steel along with Cruiser. Is that a correct solution?

On an added note: I think we should get rid of the Elephant. It's a pointless unit and real Elephants aren't the ideal fighting animal.

BTW: I agree with your statement about Polythiesm being the prereq for Monotheism. I belive the oldest religion was Monothiestic. Forget what it was called though...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Eh, once again I find myself saying that realism is overrated. If you want to get right down to it, you'd find that Civ is just fun way to simulate running a civilization without the slighest bit of realism at all. Never has had much true realism to the game.

But I suppose if you want to make the tech tree more palatable, you could do so easily. Alot of things you 2 say make sense.

However, I think alot of these units appear to approximate the actual time in history when they began to show up or be used: for instance, riflemen started to show up around the time of modern democray, battleships around the time of the automobile, etc.

Also, I disagree with a couple of things:

1) I think polytheism should definitely be a requirement monotheism. Scholars of religious history will tell you monotheism is the first religion of primitive cultures (the belief in an uncaring, all-powerful "sky god"), that develops into polytheism -- the belief in more human-like gods (a "storm god" fertilizing an "Earth goddess", etc). The pinnacle of religious developments, however, is modern monotheism -- the belief in an all-powerful God that also cares about mankind and (sometimes) posseses human-like characteristics (i.e., Christianity, Judaism). I think "monotheism" in the game refers to this sort of "modern" monotheism. Polytheism DEFINITELY preceeds "modern" monotheism as nearly no culture in history has gone straight from "primitive" monotheism to "modern" monotheism.

2) I think the alphabet should definitely be a prerequisite for mapmaking. While technically it's possible to make a primitive map without a system of characters, navigating the oceans would be a difficult task at best with such a map. In real history, the development of a system of characters was crucial in allowing ships to travel the seas.

3) The elephant is a cool unit, and it's use in military history was significant.

[UltraSonix]

Why are you guys even bothering about the tech tree?! I mean, I think this is an obvious area that Firaxis will fix up, but otherwise, I agree that some of Civ2's techs don't mesh together well.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Elephant - important in history??? I'd like something to back that up please...negate Hannibal.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

It Does make Sense!

With Engineering, People better use the Land Creating King Richard's Crusade which increasing Sheild Production.

Communism is what the UN is againist, Thats why the UN was a Wonder after Communism is developed.

You must see how they are connected or you be lost.

[Urban Ranger]

FG,

I agree that polytheism is a prerequsite for monotheism.

Historically, the primitive tribes had all developed pantheism (a god/spirit in everything, but these gods or spirits are pretty much part of nature). Polytheism followed patheism and monotheism is the last rung on the ladder.

[Urban Ranger]

Gameopolis,

If you use "Engineering" in the sense of "a systematic way to construct or build things," then it has been in existence in a long, long time. I contend that you can't build anything such as the Colosus, the Great Wall, the Pyramids, etc. without engineering. So it doesn't make sense to have engineering as a prerequisite of King Richard's Crusade.

As for the UN, no, you are totally off. It is not an aparatus to fight communism, and had never been intended to do so. Otherwise, why did the USSR -- and later, the PRC -- become a permanent member of the Security Council?

[Urban Ranger]

Diplomat,

Some of these prerequisites do make sense.

Communism -> UN: Communism is not the idea itself but the rise of communistic states. This marks the modern era and thus a necessary condition for the UN.

Labor Union -> Mech Inf: the rise of Labor Union represents the advent of certain manufacturing practices, such as the assembly line. I reckon you can't have Mech Inf unless you civ is sufficiently industrialized.

Automobile -> Battleship: you can't run your battleships on steam now, can you?

Pottery being required for Seafaring actually makes perfect sense. You need some way of storing large quantities of fresh water and food if you're going to be travelling for any length of time on the ocean. Clay vessels work quite well for both as they can be corked and they are water tight.

------------------
"We are all greater artists than we realize."
-Nietzsche

[The diplomat]

You guys do raise interesting points. And since I did not give my reasons against those prereq I mentionned, I guess it is time that I explain why I think that those prereq. should be changed.

I saw "seafaring" as the knowledge of building primitive boats and thus I did not see a direct connection between knowing how to build boats and knowing how to make pottery. However, spekter@home revealed a very good indirect connection.
It is true that you need pottery to store food and fresh water that you would absolutely need it if you were making a LONG journey by sea. What I suggest is this: keep "pottery" as a prereq for "seafaring" but make "mapmaking" give the explorer unit and the lighthouse, and have "seafaring" give the trireme unit and the harbor. I think that makes more sense.

I continue to oppose "enginnering" giving Richard's Crusade. If I remember my history correctly, King Richard's Crusade was where Richard sent an army to Jerusalem to destroy the Muslims because they were controlling the city and the king believed it was his "christian" duty to free the Holy City.
Now, "enginnering" is the science of planning a construction. I see no direct or indirect connection between the two!
What I propose, (I think it is a must) is that "enginneering" be somehow necessary before the player can build the Great Pyramids and the Great Walls. "masonry" is not sufficient. Those were huge feats of engineering! We have modern engineers today with computers trying to figure out how the Egyptians did it (source: Discovery Channel, History Channel)
I think that "engineering" should be a prereq for "construction".

The UN was not built because of communism. It was built because of WW2! The Allies believed after the war that they needed to form a multinational organization like the League of Nations but better, to solve crisises collectively. They believed the UN would prevent another Hitler and another World War. You don't need to know communism in order to build a UN. I suggest that "democracy" be a prereq for the UN, because the UN is a 'democratic' notion.

"Labor Union" is where workers come together to better represent their rights, and prevent exploitation. I don't see why you need to have unions to have a mechanized infantry unit. It should require a modern industry and a high level of military knowledge.

"polytheism" should not give the elephant unit. What is the connection between believing in many gods and riding an elephant?
"O Great Chief, we have learned something called polytheism!"
"What is polytheism?"
"It is the belief that there a several gods in the universe. We should worship all of them."
"Good faithful servant, that just gives me a great idea, see that elephant over there, we can ride it and attack our enemies!"
"horseback riding" should give the elephant unit.

No, a battleship does not run on steam. It would require combustion or better. But the player has "combustion" since it is a prereq. So, "combustion" should give the submarine and the battleship.

In closing, I don't think that the tech tree must make perfect sense. I cede that "polytheism" can be a prereq for "monotheism" and "pottery" to "seafaring, and any other link that mmakes sense. But whenever there are obvious inconsistencies, they should be fixed. "medicine" gving Shakespeare's theatre! I rest my case.


------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited June 08, 2000).]

[Ken Bregott]

Urban Ranger- Without Communism, there would have been no Cold War. Without the Cold War, the UN certainly wouldn't have been set up the way it was. I expect the same reasoning lies behind communism as a prequisite for the Spy unit.

The UN was created with Communist members. It wasn't to fight Communism. Infact, it was made at the end of WWII and as Urban Ranger pointed out, it was made to prevent a third world war, not to defend or fight Communism. That's what Nato was for. Check your facts again...

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited June 08, 2000).]

[Par4]

hmmph everyone knows the pyramids were constructed by the altantians and the secrets of its construction is hidden deep under the front right paw of the sphinx

UN was to stop a nuclear war, end of story. NATO was founded to stop communism from flowing into western europe or something although it seems to have failed after communism fell. Go to europe, see the socialist regimes, and the historical venues.

Of course we all know communism created the UN to make a world government that was gradually turning socialist then twist it into stalinism. Its the truth, honest, yes honest, the truth yes...

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[Ken Bregott]

What I am trying to say is that communism, as a factor, was important in the basic structure of the UN. You see, the UN had to be set up in such a way as to always appease two different ideologies. Thus the arrangement with permanent members of the security council, for example. The League of Nations, created in a different era for a different power-balance, was very different in structure. What would the UN be like without the inclusion of the USSR?

[Urban Ranger]

A UN without USSR wouldn't be UN now, would it, considering USSR was one of the biggest and most powerful nations then?

A UN without the USSR would be the league of Nations. The Soviets were kicked out after attacking Finland around 1939 (give or take a year) But that's not the point. The UN was not to prevent Communism from spreading, or being formed in East Europe, or from being used in the USSR. The UN didn't deal with Communism. It was made to prevent WWIII, and it just happens to be that the Soviets and Western powers were the most obvious candidates for WWIII, and it just happens to be that the USSR was Communist.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[S. Kroeze]

On the issue of combining Engineering and Richard's Crusade I agree 100% with the Diplomat. There really is no relation whatsoever between them. The Crusade was a sort of Christian jihad(=holy war) and Engineering didn't contribute anything remarkable to the expedition. And the reward of this Wonder, extra shields, has nothing in common with waging war and killing innocent Muslims with their women and children.

This Crusade is a Wonder that in my opinion should be excluded from the game. Killing the 'infidel' and conquering his land doesn't contribute to the happiness of humanity. And in the end all the effort of the Christians was in vain: Jerusalem was conquered in 1099, lost in 1187 to Saladin, who was both a superior statesman and a greater humanitarian; acquired through negotiation in 1229 by the Emperor Friedrich II, and permanently lost in 1244. Acre/Akko, the last Christian stronghold, fell in 1291. King Richard didn't play a significant part; the Third Crusade(1189-1192) didn't accomplish its goal: the recapture of Jerusalem!

If anything, tie it in with Crusaders. Like free support for Crusaders + all crusaders start with veteran status + all crusaders have +2 attack/defense. Anything but giving more shields! But I'd rather see it out of the game, it's a pointless wonder.

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"

[Urban Ranger]

I agree. It's silly to have that as a Wonder.

[Spekter]

It's not necessarily silly, but it does show the game's western, christian bias. I think someone said it elsewhere, but all of the Wonders need to be generalized a lot more. They should "borrow" the effects of "real" wonders, but not the names or originating cultures. If you want to put something like the Crusades in, call it the Jihad or better yet, let the player name it when he builds it.

[Marcel I]

Elephants were widely used in the campaigns of Alexander the Great.. They did play a significant role because they were hard to kill in battle and caused a lot of damage to the infantry units of that time.
They were also slower than normal cavalry so I don't think their effect is portrayed very well in Civ2.
When Firaxis puts the unit in Civ3 I think it should get a high defense in field battles (like it is always fortified) and a high attack against fortified units, but only one movement point.
Civ2's picture representing mechanised infantry looks more like armored cars after WW1. In Germany they were used to suppress riots induced by communist and anarchist groups. It's the only feeble link I see with communism and labor union.
The concept of mechanised infantry is logically connected with mobile warfare. The germans in WW2 did hardly use MI in their early victories in Poland and France, but gradually all kinds of halftrack vehicles were used in battle. Other kinds of transport just couldn't keep up with the tanks.

------------------
Adopt, Adapt and Improve

[S. Kroeze]

quote: Originally posted by Marcel I on 06-12-2000 06:08 AM Elephants were widely (?) used in the campaigns of Alexander the Great.. They did play a significant role because they were hard to kill in battle and caused a lot of damage to the infantry units of that time. They were also slower than normal cavalry so I don't think their effect is portrayed very well in Civ2. When Firaxis puts the unit in Civ3 I think it should get a high defense in field battles (like it is always fortified) and a high attack against fortified units, but only one movement point.

Elephant:
According to the 'Times Atlas of Archaeology' in about 600BC the first war elephants were used in India.

'The war elephant was first used in India and was known to the Persians by the 4th century BC. Though they accomplished little subsequently, their presence in Hannibal's army during its transit of the Alps into Italy in 218 BC underscored their perceived utility. The elephant's tactical importance apparently stemmed in large part from its willingness to charge both men and horses and from the panic that it inspired in horses.'
(source: Britannica.com, article 'military technology')
So they weren't very useful; I like their trumpeting though.

Sometimes my encyclopaedic citations can be used in a very practical way. One should be willing and able to read such a citation carefully, though. Unfortunately some people don't have that ability!
To my knowledge Alexander the Great never used elephants. He fought against them in India. For the history buffs just a small citation to show I am not inventing history, but only using knowledge easily accessible.

(In my opinion it would simplify discussions a lot when people wouldn't make unfounded statements about subjects not belonging to their field of knowledge. That's the main reason I use citations: the other party can verify the source of my statements)

'Finally, there were the elephants he met on the Hydaspes in his epic battle with the Indian prince Porus. It has been said his troops were never the same afterward. Yet Alexander was quick to grasp the significance of these warlike pachyderms (untrained horses would not charge them, nor could the phalanx keep them at bay) and arranged for substantial numbers to be returned to the West, where his Successors would eagerly compete for them.'
(source: R.L.O'Connell:'Of Arms and Men',1989)

Andz83 will probably not sleep this night due to indigestion, but I can live with that.

And I agree with Marcel I that the elephant should remain in the game, because it has become part of the Civ-folklore. But the character/game-values of the unit should be brought more to agreement with reality!

[Par4]

An elephant never forgets! I seriously doubt Hannibal would have gotten as far as he did in Italy without his elephants. They broke up Roman legions which allowed the better trained and veteran Carthaginians to defeat the romans 1 on 1. They also scared some roman horses and could act as platforms for archers to get a good shot at unprotected infantry. I have a great book on the 2nd punic war that has a chapter that talks all about how elephants won the war, well almost. Also Scipio's use of columns to divert elephants was very very important to victory over hannibal in Zama. Elephants must stay because an elephant never forgets.

Yay elephants, aaaahhhhh a mouse, squish!

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand

[Hasdrubal]

Elephants and Hannibal: Hannibal took several dozens of elephants with him when he started his famous campaign across the Alps and into Italy in 218 b.c. Most elephants perished already while crossing the Alps, the remainder were lost in the very first battle. Save for one, which he used for himself. This last unfortunate animal died the year after, in 217 b.c. The remaining 16 years of the second Punic War were fought without elephants.
The actual use of war elephants is very limited. They are clumsy, tough to train and enormously expensive to feed. They can't compete with the speed of a horse or the strength of a chariot. Not to mention that they are as likely to trample your own troops as well as your opponents to death. The best use of elephants is in scaring the enemy away. Here is were the link with polytheism becomes clear. Imagine those poor, unsuspecting and superstitious Celtic tribes when they first saw Hannibal riding and commanding this huge, imposing, never-before-seen beast that seemed to come directly out of another world. The world of the Gods...
My proposal for it's use in the game would be to lower it's speed, and give it a special bonus, like taking away the veteran status of your opponent, or lowering the defensive power by one, by reason of the fear that an onrushing elephant causes.

------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.
[This message has been edited by Hasdrubal (edited June 12, 2000).]

I agree with the fact the elephants should be in the game, but I disagree with making them a separate unit. How about taking the Elephant and Horses and making them additions to a unit.

Example - Warrior (1/1/1) + Horse = Horsemen (2/1/2)
Archer (3/2/1) + Horse = Mounted Archers (better name!) (4/2/2)
Warrior (1/1/1) + Elephant = Elephant Warrior (better name!) (3/2/2 + 50% attack versus horsemen)
Archer (3/2/1) + Elephant = Elephant Archer (better name!) = (5/3/2)
Legion (4/2/1) + Horse = (5/2/2) Dragoons?

etc...

This could tie in with the Unit workshop. I don't know if anyone sees room for expansion on this idea, but basically I see it as horse adding 1 movement + 1 attack; Elephant adding 2 attack, 1 defense, 1 movement and so on...


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
"Oh, they have the Internet on computers now!"
[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited June 12, 2000).]

[Par4]

Oh well guess I was wrong, but that's all I've ever heard

Stupid wrong book with crappy wrong info.

*kicks book*

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

[Par4]

OOOOHHHH Orange man you got Prince status
*looks up way way up*
Elephant archer=magic thunder bear that shoots sticks
I agree they should just be additions to units or armies. Who fights with just elephants anyway. And an elephant never forgets. More like shock troops.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

[Hasdrubal]

quote: Oh well guess I was wrong, but that's all I've ever heard Stupid wrong book with crappy wrong info. *kicks book*

At least you read your books all the way through. I went back to my book about the Punic wars. I found this hidden chapter that is about the final stage of the war, in Africa following Hannibal's retreat from Italy, one that wasn't obliged reading material at university, one that I therefore shamefully never bothered to read, and which is titled: 'Par4 is right, Hasdrubal not'. After returning to Africa, Hannibal aquired eigthy elephants, which he used at the battle of Zama and were indeed diverted by Scipio's clever use of columns, as you stated. Oh well, guess it still proves the uselesness of war elephants.

*Kicks himself*


------------------
Ceterum censeo Romanem esse delendam.

[Adm.Naismith]

OrangeSfwr, I agree with your idea of build units by workshop (I suggested the same on my "workshop" thread).

May be we can think that the elephant, horses, camels, are different "chassis" in the SMAC sense.
Or simply different name/variant of the same "animal, four legs" if you decide to add some personalization for every Civ.

So mounted troops in Asiatic Civ will be on Elephants, in Egypt will be on Camels, others will have Horses.

Hmmm, may be not. Horses are quite common worldwide to limit them to some Civ use. Never mind.

Back to workshop, that's how things worked in real life. In the past someone developed the Horseriding, then put soldiers on horses, developed proper tactics, chosed a name for the new unit. Well, almost

Ok, I know it worked with planes. First military use as artillery observers (in place of ballons), then first attack with hand guns (for dogfight) and hand grenade (for bombing), then developing of proper, specialized weapons.

As in SMAC we simply must have some limits on compatibility between weapons and chassis:
Cannons mounted on elephants? Nah!
Cannons with horses? Yes, they are used to move cannons in place (faster movement).

Then, fixing/expanding the tech tree, we can make available some combos between chassis, weapons and "specials" to make more powerful units.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant