Bluekkis

Needs better tech _tree_ than last time

Needs better tech _tree_ than last time

I really liked GalCiv2 except for one critical part of the whole experience. Tech tree on it was boring and pointless. Which was annoying since tech is my favourite aspect on any game in this genre. I seriously hope GC3 improves on this aspect. And I'm not just talking about lots of unique tech on races.

Multiple requirements, optional requirements.. Tech tree needs to be more complex. Or the very least it should support modding in tech tree that is more interesting and provides more options for advancement than just next in the endless straight line. Some techs should depend on more than one other tech possibly from other branches and some techs could have optional dependencies that are not required but could reduce research cost if acquired.

Other than that, I'm really exited on GalCiv3. 

377,686 views 121 replies
Reply #51 Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 50



Quoting WIllythemailboy,
reply 48



GC2 did that, as long as the tech was in the same chain. If you overkilled Laser II, the excess would go into Laser III, then Laser IV, etc. The only time it would matter is when researching a terminal tech in a chain. That's not to say it wouldn't be nice to be able to redirect the remainder to something else if I wanted to end at Laser II for some reason.


 

And if you generated enough tech points in one turn you would get the two techs in one turn, the one you were researching and the next one in the chain.

Two? I often blow through entire chains of defensive techs in 2-3 turns. Sometime 6-8 techs in the same turn.

Reply #52 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 45

There's a reason why the Civilization style more or less linear tech tree is in so many games: it works.

Yes, but even civ had techs with multiple requirements. And as for needed resources, you could research everything, but you couldn't build the resulting unit when lacking necessary resources (e.g. no sword fighter without iron). The logic behind tbis is that you could ge to enough samples of the needed resource to finish you invention, but without a source on your own (trading or mining) you wouldn't have enough of it to use it in a greater scale (industrially).

So, I think there is room for (playable) improvement on the tech tree. And I too like the idea of splitting research points over multiple tech fields.

 

Reply #53 Top

Funny you mention this OP. Even though it's been a very long time since I played galciv, this thread reminded me of the boring research techs. So, I agree with you.

Reply #54 Top

Hey, they can release DLC with more ship parts to show off online or single player, with a system like that they can rake in untold profits if the base game is good.

Reply #55 Top

I know I seem to be at odds with most of the posters, here but I really thought the GCII tech tree was a good one. Could it have some improvement, sure but I liked most of what they had. There was lots of it, so you never ran out of stuff to research. I don't want them to throw away all they had before.

Reply #56 Top

Quoting baldbill46, reply 55

I know I seem to be at odds with most of the posters, here but I really thought the GCII tech tree was a good one. Could it have some improvement, sure but I liked most of what they had. There was lots of it, so you never ran out of stuff to research. I don't want them to throw away all they had before.

I agree.

+1 Loading…
Reply #57 Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 56

Quoting baldbill46, reply 55
I know I seem to be at odds with most of the posters, here but I really thought the GCII tech tree was a good one. Could it have some improvement, sure but I liked most of what they had. There was lots of it, so you never ran out of stuff to research. I don't want them to throw away all they had before.

I agree.

Thirded.

 

Reply #58 Top

I found GC2 tech tree rather boring. The endless laser 1, 2, 3, armor 1,2,3 and so on trees were not very interesting and you had to go through all laser series before developing the next type of weapon. This was easy to balance (let the tech get smaller, then let it make 1 point more, again shirking, then next level...), but really unimaginative. And very linear. True, there was enough tech to keep you busy for a while, but just because you had many expensive branches, all with the same scheme.

I hope for something more interesting in GC3.

Reply #59 Top

I personally would love an 'option' in 'options' to get a blind tech tree like the one in SotS II. You pick a field you want to research and have NO idea what you are going to get in 10 turns, say under 'quantum energy'. I would love some base techs to start but what you get in them may be weapons or defenses or something else. 

 

Going back to Quantum energy, you research for 10 or 20 turns, and after the system rolls a die and you may end up with Phasers, a Quantum Engine or a Mira lux Force Field. 

 

You can also weigh your research if you build certain things on  your planets or have access to some materials so you give the randomizer a greater weight to 'weapons'..

 

This would make Multi player more interesting but would be a devil to program the AI to learn and use effectively.

 

Also Just FYI, I am in the camp where I could care less if we had Multi Player or not...I just thought it would be different..

 

Overall I LOVE the Gal Civ II tech trees and think they should just be expanded upon and have each tech meaningful when you get it.  

Reply #60 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 59

This would make Multi player more interesting but would be a devil to program the AI to learn and use effectively.

Competitive multiplayer folks are probably going to hate it, due to the randomness.

As a coop player that doesn't bother me, but I don't like the blindness in general. I'd rather know what I'm getting, like how most games do it.

Reply #61 Top

I'd also like to see a more detailed tech tree, where improving your engines or research or whatever involves interesting choice, rather than going through Engines I --> Engines II --> Whatever you think is good enough.

Imagine if you instead were choosing between a cheap engine tech, which only provided speed + a culture boost you don't care about, a more expensive tech with prerequisites that could improve your economy, or a significantly distant tech which could offer major improvements, but would leave you without better engines as you traveled through the prereqs.  Instead of there being only one obvious progression, you have many possible routes, each of which could offer significant replay value even if you're the type to always go for engines.

Seems to me like the latter design beats the former, which is why I favor importing that kind of Civ/Alpha Centauri style tree into GalCiv.

 

Reply #62 Top

If anyone is old enough to remember Sid Meiers Alpha Centauri, it had a very complex tech tree that ultimately left you confused as to what you had and what good was it. I enjoyed the no-nonsense names, like laser 1, making it smaller was laser 2 etc... It is always the progression in tech as we know it. You make something, then you make it cheaper smaller etc... until you get a break thru like plasma 1, etc...

I don't want really obscure naming of every single "beam" weapon as if each is a brand new thing. I thought GC2 had very logical tech progressions. Now it doesn't mean it was perfect but it had a lot to research. Many races had some unique branches they could go down, things that made each race a bit different.

 

Reply #63 Top

Quoting Elyandarin, reply 21


Then, you make use of it - which is not guaranteed to work. If the Torians have researched Human Super-viagra, well it's not going to do THEM any good - but the Terrans will most assuredly pay big bucks for it. 

Finally, there may be side-effects, bonuses and follow-up research. Maybe the Drengin turn out to be fatally allergic to the Super-viagra, and you can use it to poison their water supply during an invasion... 

 

while the poison proved 65% fatal to the Drengin our invading forces were ahem overcome by the affects as well it seems that the poison/super viagra also had the ability to make races genetically compatible.....

in 5-7 years we expect much of the planet to be overrun with drengin/terran sex-crazed hybrids if we don't stop them now they could overrun the galaxy in less then 40 years

Reply #64 Top

You mean like, say, the Krogans on Mass effect ;)

Reply #65 Top

Galactic already have paths where 1 tech can lead to different other techs

Reply #66 Top

[quote who="chuck1es" reply="11" id="3405555"]
I quite enjoyed the research mechanic in MOO2 where you had to choose a tech making you, consequently, lose others.

Reply #67 Top

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="13" id="3405584"]
Still, if that isn't enough, there is always the option for random tech trees. I don't mean totally random. More like in SotS 1. Certain basic techs are always available, while some of the more advanced techs have a higher or lower chance of appearing each game.



Reply #68 Top

I think the most annoying part about following the same derivative research for new modules was that you rarely saw an improvement that warranted upgrading ship designs.  This was because in terms of value for space or cost, the modules were packed too close together.  If they were spread out a bit more, with a good increase in firepower through the tech tree, then you would have something to look forward to.

Reply #69 Top

Quoting Tridus, reply 45
Why would I want to do that? If I can get X, Y, and Z in 15 turns, it makes more sense to get X at turn 5, Y at 10, and Z at 15 than it does to split my research three ways and get all of them on turn 15.

That depends on the research game mechanics. If you get bonus research points for splitting up your research, you'd have a choice like "get X at turn 5, Y at 10, and Z at 15" vs "get X, Y and Z in 12 turns". Then the challenge is weighing your short-term need to have tech X ASAP against your long-term research efficiency.

Adding some more complexity, I suggest the optimum research strategy - the things that give you the most research bonuses - should be derived from your civilization's cultural approach to science; then you could decide on it in the Species Editor before start. 

Reply #70 Top

[quote who="Magnumaniac" reply="9" id="3405467"]
 

Reply #71 Top

[quote who="Gaunathor" reply="13" id="3405

Reply #72 Top

[quote who="RonLugge" reply="14" id="340558

Reply #73 Top

[quote who="Magnumaniac" reply="17" id="34056

Reply #74 Top

[quote who="Jam3" reply="18" id="3405621

Reply #75 Top

Quoting ctiberius, reply 20

4x tech research has a serious flaw in my opinion. It always assumes that technological research is somehow centrally planned. There are vast private industries, presumably, in the GalCiv universe. I'm sure they're all researching their own stuff for commercial purposes. I'd love to see the private sector added to 4x games as the market is vastly larger than what is planned centrally by a government. 

In that idealized utopia of mine, private enterprise would make research and tech breakthroughs that aren't visible or 'selectable' by the user on the tech tree. They could be randomized to some degree so they're not always the same. Imagine a pool of thousands of techs that are gradually and randomly selected for 'discovery' via private sector companies over the course of the game. Maybe human companies are weighted for propulsion tech, etc. 

Actually while I'm at it, why not a whole sub component of the game that is this vast private sector that isn't 100% directly controllable by the user but can be influenced by policies, techs, diplomatic actions, etc. Companies and industries could come and go over the course of the game. Government types would also influence how/whether the private market worked. It'd add flavor and a certain uncontrollable element that would enhance replay value.