The Tech Tree Revisited

Quantum vs Incremental

from GalCiv3 Forums


I have noticed a number of comments about the tech tree that generally address the paucity of "quantum leap" types of technology. In other words, when you research them you get a new ability of some kind that is quite significant so that the gamer feels a sense of achievement and a sense of making serious progress in the game. These comments then compare such proposed techs to the actual trees that are, in many cases, incremental. 10% this, 10% that, etc., and there is no sense of a breakthrough.

I think I understand and have some sympathy for these comments. I would say there are some techs in the tree now that are critical, such as a new ship size, but the point has been that there aren't enough. I would like to suggest there is another side to this. Please understand, I am not saying where the balance lies, I am just suggesting another criteria to evaluate. Namely, that incremental technology provides a more difficult strategical approach.

I recall Civ4 BTS, some would say the best 4x ever, some not. That tech tree was immense. At higher difficulty levels the trick was to minimize research outside the absolutely necessary and "beeline" the necessary techs. Once understood, the tech tree in a sense became less critical, one just followed the yellow brick road, if you will. Don't get me wrong, I like and played BTS a LOT.

With a more incremental tech path, such canned research plans do not pop out. The gamer has to decide how far to go up a particular tree when the differences are not huge. The approach is likely more fluid. The decision as to when to go to a different branch will not be clear cut. True, I won't get the feeling like, ahhh, I got this tech, so now I am winning feeling. I know that feeling. The question is, how susceptible to canned strategies do we want the tech tree to be? Personally, I don't know!

I do know that as it stands I feel pretty good when I can produce paladins with all three offensive and all three defensive techs, but I am sure some would question that design.

Very interested to hear any reaction, fire away!

15,093 views 3 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Yup I played alot of BTS too :3

 

Specialization techs as they are called are not quite supposed to be breakthrough techs, more of a improvement on the breakthrough that you just researched.

 

Darca '_;

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Incremental techs make a lot of sense to me.  For example, I liked the five steps of lasers in GC2.  When do I stop researching and start building with the current techs and parts?  When is "enough"?  It is a repeatedly interesting decision for me and often determines a lot of my war plans.

 

What I dislike is game breaking technologies.  One of the family loves GC2 spore ships.  I loathe the fact they exist.  And a lot of folk wouldn't consider spore ships game breaking, I realize that.

 

I am hoping for a balanced compromise of incremental and major techs.  I think a lot of the flavor stuff we all want will be in certain enabling techs and the iterative techs will act as a framework for those special places on the tech tree.   I would campaign for a more complex tech tree with more dependencies for each tech, but I am not sure I will get that in a GalCiv game.

 

 

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I like civilization four it was a great game. I like galactic civilization two ultimate it was a great ga,me. I like a lot of techs. I guess I be line when I learn techs. I like to start out with survey technologies. Planetary improvements. Morale economic improvements. This is my strategy until I meet someone. Universal translator and diplomatic techs. Trade tevhs. Until I finish building some planets terriforming. Until some of my planets are full farming. Until my survey ships can't find no more anomolies sensors hulls miniterization engines life support. Until someone tries to bully me at first I trade for every weapon I can get my hands on then I research missile technology. This is my basic science strategy. Didn't understand the question. Can you reanswer the question a little clearer.