Accounts e-mail HP

Simplified tech tree

Anything about Greatturn in general, not related to a specific match.

Re: Simplified tech tree

Postby monamipierrot » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:43 pm

Corbeau wrote:
morphles wrote:And as previosly said iprovements that boost stuf are already there.

Not regarding food and production.

I'm with morphles. Imbrovement that boost are already there. For food: granary (indirectly) and supermarket. For production, factory and power plants etc.
I don't see your point, while I see Morphles' about improvement AND abilities.
Anyway, I am strong advocate of simplification. Actual number of available improvements or units is one indicator of how complicated is the game. Freeciv DOESN'T need any new item: it may need a rewriting of how do they work, and maybe they should be LESS.
Back to the tech tree and trading techs. Are you sure you can live without tech trading (And conquering and stealing)? Let's see the PROS and CONs of free Tech trading (and conquering and stealing):
PROS:
1. It allows weak players to keep the science pace by trading/stealing/conquering
2. It allows someone to specialize in "tech trader" in early and even mid game (as for me in GT01)
3. It burst diplomacy variables, expecially in early game, making diplomacy more complex


CONS:
1. It makes tech level too "even" and "standard" inside and outside of alliances, so it destroys specialization (except for alliances in which ONE player is the scientist and the other are the bad guys, but this is a really boring kind of specialization, expecially for the scientist guy!) We are speaking of both specialization in branches of tech (e.g. marine/naval vs. land), and also in tech level itself (one may want to have a huge army even without the last tech gear around)
2. It greatly complicates diplomacy in early game, and it adds LOTS of random variables. This will benefit the player with LOTS of time for diplomacy and which are online 24/24. If you can contact an isolated community even just one minute before some other player, you can start a trading chain and control all the trade traffic (it happened to me in GT01). And this is just luck, believe me.
3. It makes senseless for weak players to specialize in a tech branch suitable to its role, e.g. to defend its island with the latest naval gear even without knowing much of land units.
4. It allows biggest empires to live out of weaker players tech by conquering and stealing techs.
monamipierrot
Co-Admin of GT01, GT10-Hex.
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:43 pm
Location: Barcelona, Spain

Re: Simplified tech tree

Postby morphles » Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:51 pm

I agree that simplification would be good. Even though you mentioned something about game devolving to "rts games that were popular then civ was invented" I would suggest you try total annihilation or its successors (comercal or my prefered - some of springrts games, balanced annihilation [basically totall annihilation with more units] or zero-k, though this one takes quite different approaches and is quite different, still nice game thouth).

As I said in my other posts "tech as infrastructure" has termedous strategic and tactical advantages gameplay wise. Though I must note that currently such things can only be implemented in very awkward ways only, though with 2.6 it should be possible to do that nicely.

I'm currently medling with ruleset creation quite a bit. And have very strong base, "different map paradigm", basically complete. And I was wondering what to do with units and tech, for now I'll try to stick with a clasicall setup to not scare too many people away, as map appearance might already do that alone. But I was also heavilty thinking about issues mentioned by monami in first post.

My main gripe with all tech tree is that you have to wait tons of time for anything interesting: diplomats 2 tier tech, well in default, c2c3 fixes it (still way overpriced/has nasty limitations, nothing ruleset can do about them though), caravans tier 3, ships t2 for lame t4 for normal, amphibious attack totally far, planes, missiles, paradroping all very very far. Not that some of those things should be close. Still much of the suff between seem quite shallow. I'm also very very big hater of goverments, I would wipe them from tech tree and game, possibly leaving two only, maybe one of them anarchy that is temporary but with some strong positive and negative properties to have kinda "turbo button" for your civ. Most units are incremental improvements, which has some merits, but I think having more distinct units would better.

Lets take t1, phlanx and archers (c2c3), I see very little point in having phlanx at all, def same as archers, while attack is 3 times less(=warrior), ok it costs two thirds of an archer, still seems like mostly empty unit.

I think "unit techs" should cost more and there should be hefty tech cost increase depending on number of techs owned (I oppose tech upkeep), they should also be as independent as possible. While "building/econ techs" can be cheaper not dependant much on unit techs, and providing base for more advanced unit techs. That should allow less uniform tech distributions between players.

Ech this turns out less coherent than I'd want, no too much time still.
morphles
Co-Admin of GT10-Hexmap
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:43 pm

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron