On Research and Technology

I fully agree, Cross path synergies are a must for a good research model.

The unrelentlingly linear techtree of GC is one of the primary reasons i can't play more then one game a year. I just can't bear to face the 'get tech one, get tech two, get tech three' redesign all my unit each time to take advantage of the infentesmicimal advantage between lazers 3 and lazers 4.... yuck.

Ideally every tech should matter, and late techs should have dependencies outside thier stream to prevent bee-lining it to warfare 200.

Anyway that's my beef with GC and linear tech trees.

Robbie

Thank you. Do you think it would be possible here to list some suggestions, even as vague concepts, which could be considered worthy of fleshing out? I'll try to start and would welcome people to add some of their own ideas:

- [Breakthrough]: Advanced Archery (lets you build "crossbows") [Path: Warfare] --> can be seen as available, but cannot be purchased until the breakthrough "Winches" [Path: Civilization] has been purchased

- [Breakthrough]: Arcane Forge I (lets you make +1 magic weapons) [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Arcane Construction I [Path: Magic] (and requires certain quantities of Ore, of course)

- [Breakthrough]: Arcane Forge II (lets you make +1 magic armor piercing weapons) [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Arcane Construction II [Path: Magic] AND [Breakthrough]: Reinforced Steel [Path: Civilization] (and requires certain quantities of Ore, of course)

- [Breakthrough]: Trebuchets [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Physics [Path: Civilization]

- [Breakthrough]: Spell / Potion of Compulsion (lets you try to "charm" other human entities) [Path: Magic] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Subtle Talking [Path: Diplomacy]

- [Breakthrough]: Spell / Potion of Total Compulsion (lets you "charm" any entity) [Path: Magic] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Subtle Talking II [Path: Diplomacy] AND [Breakthrough]: Animal Speech [Path: Adventuring]

Any of these you like? Should it be more complicated? Can you add some please? Thank you.

... yeah and that's why i just skipped making, say, generational fighters with lasers I, Lasers II and so on, i just went straight to laser V and left it at that.

 I'm feeling like a smartass by suggesting this. How about this line:

Research Ranged Weapons (you get a rock) --> Throwings Weapons (knives) --> Throwing Weapons II (axes) --> etc,etc

                                                Research Slings (goes nowhere from here)

                                                Research Simple Bows (after this point comes Longbows, composite bows and so on)

                                                Research Belly Bows (precursor of both the crossbow and balista)

I suggested a similar composite  a while ago.

Good ideas.  One thing I am not looiking forward to in the next beta though is this idea of choosing your next breakthrough (your scholars have made a major breakthough - choose the technology you wish to gain).  It may work quite well but in roleplaying terms it's an absolute bomb.  But that's what betas are for after all.

Actually, the "pick your own tech" seems to work VERY well in roleplaying terms, and as far as I can tell it will work in Gameplay terms as well. The most important thing being that the system is fun, and gives more control to the player. More ability to do some sort of "absolutism" roleplay ... one way or another.

I think this Permutable tech-tree will allow for a far greater faction differentiation than any element placed into 4x gaming thus far.

Thank you for these replies so far. I am not sure I understood Fenhiro entirely, but that may be due to my suboptimal English skills -- sorry, sir (and to all those patient enough to glean something useful from my words).

I thought I would elaborate on the idea a little more and give some more examples, if I may.

First, I am unclear if the gameplay is currently headed in this direction or not, but I think it would be good if research and technology were quantified as a hybrid between Level and Breakthrough: By this I mean that spending research points in (some of? all of?) the (currently: 5) research pathways should give a person a quantifiable "level" in that field, regardless of the breakthroughs that person has purchased; this "level" in that research pathway would bestow an applicable bonus to that player in the applicable field, in addition to the boni that player obtains via the breakthroughs purchased in that path. (I would like to give some examples below.) In other words, one could consider the "research power" a player has in any field as a composite of Research Points spent in one of the (currently: 5) research paths and the breakthroughs that person obtained in these fields analogously to the D&D3E concept Level / Class + Feats.

Examples of what I mean above could be formulated like this: Researching in the "Diplomacy" tree for 30 turns means that you have invested, say, 1.000 research points in Diplomacy; because of this, in those 30 turns, you were able to purchase 4 breakthroughs in Diplomacy. Your Breakthroughs included "Subtle Talking", "Advanced Subtelty", "Animal Speech" and "Religious Sensibility". The boni gained by last two breakthroughs manifest themselves primarily in new gameplay options now open to you: you can now communicate with beasts and you can join or found a religion (and build buildings of those religions if you have the correct Civilization breakthroughs and train the right religious units if you have the right Warfare breakthroughs). The first two of these 4 breakthroughs also have some gameplay options tied in to them, though perhaps not quite as explicit, perhaps this: you can now use "charm" spells or potions (if you have the right Magic breakthroughs), or perhaps you can train "spy"-like units (perhaps if you have the correct Adventuring breakthrough), but these breakthroughs in Subtelty also give your nation an inherent bonus in "diplomatic strength". However, the 1.000 research points that you have invested in Diplomacy also mean that, no matter what breakthroughs you may have chosen, that your nation has a "Level 6" (or however you want to quantify it) diplomacy rating.

Secondly, I'd like to continue my original post with some more examples of cross-path research synergy / cross-path technology interdependency.

- [Breakthrough]: Stealth (lets you build units with a sneak ability) [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Hiding [Path: Adventuring]

- [Breakthrough]: Advanced Stealth (lets you build units with a sneak ability and unlocks urban stealth, giving units in cities the chance to perform "spy"-like actions, like sabotage) [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Advanced Hiding [Path: Adventuring] AND [Breakthrough]: Trickery [Path: Adventuring]

- [Breakthrough]: Assasination (lets you build spy-cum-assasin units) [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Advanced Hiding [Path: Adventuring] AND [Breakthrough]: Advanced Trickery [Path: Adventuring]

- [Breakthrough]: Advanced Spying (lets you build units which can negate enemy commander commands and sabotage buildings) [Path: Diplomacy] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Advanced Trickery [Path: Adventuring]

- [Breakthrough]: Valaryian Steel Forges [Path: Civilization] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Imbuement [Path: Magic]

- [Breakthrough]: Heraldic Banners (lets you construct buildings with increased Prestige boni) [Path: Civilization] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Glamourous Representation [Path: Diplomacy] and Level 5 Diplomacy

- [Breakthrough]: Heraldic Oath (lets you train units with increased morale boni and a "banner"-like moral bonus to nearby units) [Path: Warfare] --> requires [Breakthrough]: Internal Motivation [Path: Diplomacy]

- [Breakthrough]: Religious Sensitivity (lets you join or found a religion) [Path: Diplomacy] 

• with [Breakthrough]: Architecture (allows you to spend 50% more time and resources on building, but gain 100% bonus on prestige for those buildings, can build Mansions, can upgrade buildings) [Path: Civilization] --> synergy with Religious Sensitivy = lets you build Temples
• with [Breakthrough]: Advanced Architecture (allows you to spend 75% more time and resources on building, but gain 200% bonus on prestige for those buildings and can now build Villas and Grand Palaces, can upgrade buildings) [Path: Civilization] --> synergy with Religious Sensitivy = lets you build Cathedrals
• with [Breakthrough]: Crusader [Warfare] --> lets you build high-morale "knight"-like units
• with [Breakthrough]: Oath of God [Magic] --> lets you cast morale-boosting spell

Thank you in advance for your constructive feedback!

Just to be a little contrary, one problem with cross-branch dependencies is that if it's overdone you end up with basically one research tree that everyone follows, with maybe a few optional dead-end technologies; the only difference is which order each player researches techs in.  I haven't played the recent Civs, but 1 and 2 were like this.  I don't think it's as interesting as being able to take significantly different research paths each game.

I don't think this is an argument against cross-branch technologies, but I think it's important that they remain "side branches" that a civilization can specialize in or ignore rather than something that's required to progress to the highest tech levels.

I completely agree with you, Lambdaperson. That is a very good point. I hope to clarify, or perhaps modify, what I had originally wrote, in the following way, and also add one additional point.

Additional point 1: I had imagined that what I had suggested would actually encourage just that: more choices, less no-brainers. I had imagined that by having a certain number of techs be interdependent on a certain number of other ones, that the number of true meaningful choices would increase. Perhaps I am wrong.

Clarification or modification: First, with a dual-method quantification (overall level + breakthroughs), I had imagined that the cross-synergies would be "in addition to", and not "must be done this way". But I think perhaps the best way to handle the difficulties that might arise from your point would be in the last example of my previous post: Breakthroughs require research in a path, and when you achieve enough points to earn a breakthrough, you get one, and the one that you get gives you benefits; these breakthroughs, or at least most of them, might not require a prerequisite from another path, but yield additional benefits when the synergetic breakthrough is then earned: so earning the breakthrough "Religion" in Diplomacy will, in addition to the benefits that this breakthrough brings in and of itself, allow you to build religious-type warrior units ("crusaders") and build religious buildings ("temples") etc. Similarly, one could interpret the first example in my first post in the following manner: Researching Archery and Advanced archery lets you build nice archer units (warfare); earning the "winches" breakthrough in Civilization lets you build buildings 50% faster and allows you to construct bridges; if you have both, you can build "crossbows" -- you don't then need one or the other for a progession down a tree, they are rather composite substrates on a branch.

Goodmorning all,

I would throw my vote with the cross path synergies as well, but not to the exclution of cross path pre-requisits.

Firstly the research tree is going to be semi-randomly generated, or parts of it will be randomly populated.  Haveing semi-randomly generated pre-requisits is also an option which i would like to see considered.

Also there can be 'any three of the 5' prerequisits that still force you to branch out, but don't restrict you to following one research path to get to tech XYZ.

For me the primary roll of cross path prerequisits is to allow the high level techs to be strong and powerful without having to make them take 10^14 research points. [leading to the  nothing nothing nothing BANG] effect of finnally finishing tech XYZ if techs are kept strong but sepperated by exponentially widening gaps.

A tech tree only has so many options if it's linear,  each progressive tech can be less and less useful, each progressive tech can be more and more time consuming, or it can have cross path prerequisits. The first leads to pointlessness, the second leads to 'nothing nothing bang' (and overpowerful tech stealing IMO.)  Thus i am hoping for the third.

Take care all.

Robbie Price.

To your question Onomastikon about i meant:

First you start out researching weapons in your warfare branch which then allows you to research ranged weapons. you decide to research the said tech and when it is finished being researched you get the ability to throw rocks (low tech as it gets). this naturally would open up three unique branches like Throwing Weapons, Slings, and Archery. Since all a sling really amounts to is a piece of leather used to hurl stones over great distances, this tech branch more or less ends there. Now Throwing Weapons and Archery are a different story. Throwing Weapons opens itself up into three new branches: throwing knives and stars, throwing axes, and throwing spears. at first you would get crude version and as you progress you gain more advanced models like from a crude throwing spears to javelins, darts and pilums (or pila for those Ancient Roman buffs out there).

Here's better a version from my previous post:

                                                      |-->Throwing Knives and Stars

                       |->Throwing weapons |-->Throwing Axes

                       |                             |--> Throwing Spears --> javelin --> Pilum

Range weapons |--> Slings

                       |                 |--> Bows |--> composite bows --> compound bows --> longbows

                      |--> Archery |              |--> arrow heads

                                        |--> belly bow --> light crossbow --> heavy Cross bow

Fortunately this is only a rough stetch example so it's pretty basic and i intentionally left some items out of laziness and writers block. hope this helps clarify what i meant

Thank you, Fenhiro. I'd say that makes sense. It seems to address the concept of linear tech progression, however, and not cross-path synergy or cross-path requirements. I'd like to see more cross-path interaction (be it requirement or synergy), since that would make things more variable, and, more importantly, at least for me and, judging by the numbers of people who disliked the way that GC2's tech "tree" worked, more fun. I'm thinking of more examples from all 5 "schools" of research which could have interactions with one another, as well as a way of systemazing the idea of quantifying "levels" of research in each of these schools in addition to the individual breakthroughs available as a second method of technology advancement. I'd be very happy if more people offer their suggestions for cross-path interaction here!

yea, I would rather be able to, say, Research nearly everything in military without crossing over ... except for complex machinery like Crossbows, Warships, or Seige Engines. (or guns). Such things would be unlocked with the "Machinery" tech in Civilization (or a wench tech, a Dry-dock tech, and an advanced machinery tech respectively ... all unlocked by a basic machinery tech which allows for belly bows (the precursor to crossbows) and small military ships.

Well, For those people that want complete synergistic paths, I beseech that such extra techs SPEED the process of unit creation, rather than be a requirement. For instance, a military player could tech to warships without ever using Drydocks, only with drydocks you build ships 40% faster. As for most other military units ... the key Civilization techs "Conscription" and "Mass Conscription" will allow for the production of large units become much more expedient. (10 of a soldier X will take 30% faster, while 50 of soldier X will be 50% faster, while 100 of soldier X would be 110% faster???) we will see.

I can't think of any other "necessary" cross-overs. Except for the Wheel -> Chariots. Well, okay ... You will need Animal Husbandry in order to start researching "Horsebackriding" in the military sector.

You've already mentioned a couple of "necessary" cross-overs -- but to reiterate again, I would like to see these "necessary" "prerequisites" as something you need to make a specific addition, but NOT something which blocks progress in that tree entirely (since that would be impossible anyhow with the current "breakthrough" system).

In other words, the current way that Elemental is set up allows you only 5 strategic choices in how to spend your research resources: Warfare, Civilization, Magic, Adventuring, and Diplomacy. What I am suggesting is this: For a number of useful elements, these only become available if a synergestic component from a different branch is already purchased, such as machinery in civilization.

In other words: you have already researched archery and advanced archery, you can train and recruit good, perhaps even excellent bowmen; but it was your applied scientists, originally working on construction, who came up with the great idea of making portable winches on top-loading arrow-throwers -- and the crossbow was born. Now, you can (additionally) equip your men with this device; their archery skill is still determined by their warfare training. I think the same -- and this is the key, at least for me: fun -- idea can be applied to a number of elements. This will allow you to continue to beeline for ever-improving Warfare breakthroughs, if you so choose -- and even if they have different names, because the combat mechanics appear to be relatively simple, your breakthroughs really will be just adding HP, attack, or speed points to your units -- but it will also allow you to diversify depending on your needs, if you so choose -- perhaps you want to research some Adventuring for stealth combat units, or some Diplomacy for religious fanatics.

 here's some cross-path stuff for ya. we'll use the spear as a example.

Research Spears + Research Copper Smelting = Copper Spears

technically, you've already researched spears as a basic weapon template so what's the point researching "more advanced spears". In order to get a better spear you would need to gain access to better materials like from bone spearheads to copper spearhead. To do this you research smelting copper as a gateway to both better weapons (eventually) and other things like a royale mint (coin making shop).

Flaw with Cross-Pathing: too much makes it too complicated (in layman's). This is what can make cross-pathing problematic. some cases it can offer a fun challenge. lets use boats as our next example:

                            Research Rafts --> Canoes --> Sail boat --> Bireme

Research Woodcutting -->|                                     |                 |

                                                Research Rope -->|                 |

                                              Research Clothe -->|                 |

                                                         Research Mapmaking -->|

Sure a little here and there is okay, but if you have to research twenty seperate items (exlcuding generational linear paths) that's when it gets annoying.

I'm looking forward to the breakthrough system. I would sincerely like technologies to have some sort of effect on others. For example, researching Religion could give you Religious Troops, and depending on your military advancement they are either going to be well trained well armored  templar knights or masses of suicidal infantry. Having a complex net of prerequisites doesn't sound awfully good.

+1 Cross-techs. No more Linear & Boring Co.

+1 Deeper-you-get-the-happier-she-is. What I mean is that there shouldn't be any kind of diminishing returns present. The deeper you go in a particular tree, the better techs you should be able to achieve. If anyone of you need some dimini. then let's make 1/2/3 infinite techs in every tree (with dimini.), so that you can spend your development point elsewhere, when you eventually reach end-game.

-1 My laziness & head-ache. Will elaborate more on this matter as soon as I have some free time.

I am worried that the way technology is working is currently too unilinear. If the number of choices I have are 5, this will make obtaining breakthroughs in these paths slightly more interesting, perhaps, the first five or six times I play the game, but will not give strategic satisfaction -- it will, in essence, remain the "guns", "diplomacy" and "shields" research paths we had in GC2, with some randomness strewn in.

Forsake multi-path breakthroughs at the expense of strategic choices. The fewer the true strategic choices a player can make, the less fun she will have.

I would appreciate your constructive criticism here.

I've been fretting in many different ways about the mundane research, but the more I think about my worries, the more I wonder how many of them will seem irrelevant once the magic system is in the game. Long, long ago there was talk that mundane research would be less important to the full game than magical research. I want a strong variety of strategic choices also, but I believe I'll be happier if the majority of them involve the magic system and not the differences between a Mongol composite horsebow and an English longbow.

Exactly.

Yet if I may: When I said *strategic choices*, I meant strategic choices! In other words, not choices which give incremental advantages, or superficial differences, or tactical boni, etc -- rather, choices which influence the way your strategic plan will be able to unfold. (<-- says this knowing full well that the difference between "tactical" and "strategic" is debatable and heuristic.) In other words, I would like to ensure that players have possibilities of making choices that reflect thinking, for example: "Aha, he has amassed many archers; I need to find a counter to that until my treaty with Bob expires, then I can marry off the daughter and it won't matter that his military is more powerful". In other words, I am not looking for *other ways* to get more advantages from my research; I want research to be radically different than it was in GC2, because it was NOT FUN in GC2 -- and it was not fun, I believe, because it did not have an optimal means of allowing for *strategic* choices.

In yet other words: I do not want to have to say: Well, good thing we have magic, because mundane research is pretty much like it was in GC2, with a little twist; it is slightly less boring. Why should we do that, when implementing an idea like my humble proposal would require, it appears to me, very little effort?

This isnt exactly an example for multi-branch research, the main point of this thread, but here is an additional suggestion for other ways to "mix" research with other world entities / events:

Unlock Action: "Shield Wall". Any squad (a squad is a group of units with similar abilities on the tactical battle screen) can choose the "Shield Wall" action if

- the units posses a shield item

- the untis have been trained with the technology "Advanced Shields", in the Warfare path, single-branch (without any additonal techs)

Activating the Shield Wall action icon will give the units shield defense modifier + 150%, and the missile deflection modifier +250%; the units may take no other action and cannot attack for the turn in which this action is taken

Hmn, doesn't seem to be going this direction after all. Is this because most testers are not interested in it, or because the designers aren't, or simply because there are too many ideas out there after all? I feel linearity creeping in on me....

I'm still hoping that the magic parts are far less finished than the mundane research stuff. But all the public dev attention on unit customizing & info cards isn't leaving me very encouraged that magic will be more important than steel and muscle. It'll be a shame if the subtitle needs correcting to "War with a Little Magic on the Side."

About "diplomacy levcel" onomastikon spoke about :

It's already done like that : your "diplomacy power" that is used when you try to get treaties is you level in diplomacy ( = how many breakthrough you got in diplomacy) + tech that enhance your "diplomacy power".

Cross-techs (with prerequisite of at least two different paths) should absolutly be done with paths level, and not precise techs. It would avoid transforming the cross-techs in must-have and then re-creating a new tree with few branches.

I think that the annoying effects of incremental technologies (i.e. Laser I, Laser II, etc.) would be largely negated if the technological upgrades automatically transferred to all units. So, if I upgrade my weapons forge, the weapons of all my existing units are automatically upgraded.

This can be done at no cost, at a specified percentage, a fixed cost per unit, a fixed cost per unit based on unit type, or even a general fixed cost.

It would really reduce the tedium, especially mid to late game where you have many units floating around.

Since I do not see any developments in this direction, just wondering what most people think: I do not like modding, I am also computer illiterate -- I would really like something like this in the "vanilla" version because most of the technologies I am envisioning here are themselves complex; but even if not, how "easy" or "hard" would this be to mod?