Random tech ladder or fixed tech tree?

Great ideas, this type of application would create gameplay across the board, even spying could be tied in by giving a high level spy the trained ability to kidnap scientists and or diplomats and thus opening up the way to bypass the penalties you put forth.

 

Just posted this on the technology thread but it applies here as well, Feedback is very welcome.



Scalable research is a given, consider also allowing the option for a player to set game research speed.

Start by separating the technology into two, about 70% of the technology (base technology), goes into the tech tree.

Structure the tech tree similar to Moo2 (6-8 research fields). All races will have access to the entire tree.

Each race should then have one or two fields where they receive a research bonus (20%) and possibly an area where they receive a penalty, for each race the bonuses and penalties would be different.

A creative race would suffer no penalties and have a bonus research rate applied to all fields but at a reduced rate (say 10%)

The remainder of the technologies (Unique techs) should then be spread into artifacts discovered throughout the game as well as the random leaders appearing. In these cases it might be better if discovering these technologies does not mean that you instantly get them but rather that you are now allowed to research them.

Some lower level leaders appearing in the game may also contribute some “blueprints” to base technology as a bonus. (50%)

This approach would allow for a more diverse approach to research while staying true to the Moo franchise and as a bonus would be an instant enhancement to exploration as well. It would also add one more factor to consider when deciding on which leader to recruit.

I also believe that this would be more feasible from a coding standpoint as well.

 

Nope, I have to (politely and with respect) disagree on that one. Many times I've started a SoTS game only to find I was missing very critical techs that I considered essential to playing. I hated that! Just my opinion.

 

I believe in random technology trees. As in: RANDOM, not randomly culled.

At the start of the game, I should get the choice to either use an already played tech tree or tell the game to generate a new one. If I choose the latter, the game should draw up a whole tech tree from scratch. It would need to adhere to certain rules of course, some cornerstone technologies are simply needed for each game to work as planned, but even the placement and parameters of those can vary.

Also in this tree, there should be counter branches, which are not open, until you research or encounter the technology triggering them. Why develop point defense, unless you know missiles or fighters present a danger?

Plus there should be secret branches triggered by the discovery of certain strategic resources or in-game events.

Biological warfare should be keyed to species type and again, to develop any sort of sensible and useful biological agent, you need to have knowledge of the enemy, otherwise you might as well develop the elixir of infinite youth for their species instead of a deadly bio-toxin. I would also dare say, that any sort of bio weapon research should involve experimentation either on captured test subjects, willing (but mislead) test subjects or unwilling test subjects, depending on the circumstances. This effectively means either military or clandestine actions against the species in question.

Suffice to say, that I would do the randomization for the each player (human or AI) separately, so they would end up with different technology trees, different progression and you would really get a sense of wonder what the enemy will field, not knowing how their research tree might have looked like at the start.

 

Randomisation in the tech trees forces you to think dynamically, since your strategies need to be adaptive. For me, this is a good thing, as it increases both the challenge and variation of gameplay.

Now in multiplayer, a symmetrical and predictable game is probably better, since the challenge and variation comes from human opponents. In singleplayer, on the other hand, the game can easily become stale once you have figured out how to beat the AI.

 

Actually, the SOTS example is something I disagree with entirely, because it allows you to end up not only without significant technologies, but also makes the system feel fabricated and breaks immersion.

One prime example was the ridiculous situation where you could end up with no PD. I mean.. come on: what is the first thing you do when somebody starts throwing rocks at you? You develop some kind of shield to defend yourself. I am okay with the tech option not being there until I face such a threat, but SOTS was not smart enough for that, it simply culled technologies at random based on a flat percentage score and while sometimes it gave you great results, it had the potential to have you end up with barely any techs, if you happened to be unlucky enough to roll low on the low tier techs, efficiently blocking off large chunks of the tech tree for you.

This is not challenge you can adapt to, its getting gimped from the start and worst thing is that you sink hours into the game by the time you realize that you are really, honestly and totally screwed by the RNG. It was so frustrating, that I usually edited the tech tree files by hand to make it so that only top tier and some flavor techs had a less than 100% chance of spawning.

I believe, that any great random tech tree is adhering to the 4Rs:
Random to keep you on your toes,
Rational to make you believe it,
Riveting to give you great stories,
Repeatable so you can experiment with different strategies

One example of such a system is the one I described in my post above.

 

OK, sure, I do agree it makes you think dynamically. But, a game with NO armor, no possible upgraded engine, and only the very basic, bottom of the line weapons???? I've seen that 2 or 3 times in SotS. I do like having to think about the game, but not that much. If we've got to have random techs, I'd like to have a little more choice or a little better odds of getting some good stuff. That's just my personal preferences.

 

Distant Worlds Universe does something similar. It divides research into three categories: Weapons, Energy & Construction, and High Tech & Industrial (these could, conceivably, be split into five research areas). Research points are split into the three distinct categories, and the amount of research points gained in each category is independent of the others.

If I wanted to increase my research potential in Weapons, I could build a weapons research station, and it would have no effect on the other research categories. If my big High Tech scientist was killed/captured, it would only hurt my progress in High Tech.

I realize that splitting research points like this adds complexity to the game, but I found that I really like how DWU works in this regard. It made sense to me that scientists working to develop social and economic advancements would not be in the same research pool as those developing plasma weaponry.

 

I think this area may cause ulcers for Adam and his crew. Yeah, I get it, everyone wants something interesting and new that will enhance gameplay and increase replay value but at what point do you stop?
I still feel that by keeping the bulk of technologies available to all races and sprinkling in some unique discoverable research fields (random) as well as some specific racial techs (not random) the goal can be achieved without causing the wtf? factor to emerge.