Technology reforms?

[Bennamisi]

In Civilization 4, correct me if i'm wrong, all technologies were available as long as you made the research, or trade available to it.
I think in some points, this was a quite un-realistic and oversimplified system. It made no sense that i could research Liberalism, and then discover Fascism, while still enjoying the benefits of Liberalism, while these, logically, can't co-exist in a society.

What i urge for are certain cross-roadtechnologies, mostly in economic and political techonologies. By that i mean situations where you really have to choose between two, or perhaps three, different techs that all have their own pros and cons. Choosing one will block out discovering the other one.
Like say, you have to choose between getting military and happiness benefits through Nationalism, or taking scientific advantage throughout Liberalism. Once you've chosen one of them you are not able to discover the other.
These could also lead to one or few unique techonologies that can only be discovered by already having one of the cross-roadtechnologies. As an example, you could get a tech called "Secret Police" only when discovering Nationalism/Fascism, and a tech called "Free Journalism" only if you've discovered Liberalism.

These cross-roadtechonologies wouldn't have to be many in numbers, and not that decisive either. But it would be neat to make a possibility to choose in some well-picked questions, and civilizations would become more individual, instead of just having a race of techonologygrabbing.

What do you think? Sorry for the bad English, just ask if some of the points are too messily said

[mcl.denis]

That could be cool, but is it wholly accurate?

I mean, yes China is a communist country in a one party system, but scholars still know and understand liberalism, capitalism, etc. Right?

And theoretically, as has happened in history, a liberal democracy can then change civics to a fascist government.

[Bennamisi]

That could be cool, but is it wholly accurate?

Well, you have a point. It's impossible to make it entirely accurate. But i think, that in some points. It would be more realistic, and atleast more intresting in the game that you'd actually have to pick one. No more eating the cake and having it too once you have enough tech.

And what comes to China, i don't quite agree with you. China might have a working capitalistic economic system, but they are far from respecting the human liberal values thaught by the enlightment-time philosophers and atleast from modernday liberals. So i don't think that's a good example of real coexisting

[mcl.denis]

And what comes to China, i don't quite agree with you. China might have a working capitalistic economic system, but they are far from respecting the human liberal values thaught by the enlightment-time philosophers and atleast from modernday liberals. So i don't think that's a good example of real coexisting

Maybe we're misunderstanding one another. I don't mean to say that China is an example of coexistence, I am merely saying that when you wrote your original post, it seemed to indicate that if one state chooses a specific form of civic, it has no knowledge of competing civics (I'm using civics as a general term to encompass economics, government type, civil liberties, etc).

I merely wanted to point out that there should be some sort of recourse if the benevolent dictator changes his mind and wants to become a democracy.

I like your idea though; what if when the diety (AKA the player) choose a civic, he/she has an option to start a revolution -- at which point he goes back to square 1 of the technology tree and has to tease out the specific for whatever governmental type he / she wants. That'd be realistic as there is definitely a learning curve after a revolution!

Does that make sense?

[Bennamisi]

I like your idea though; what if when the diety (AKA the player) choose a civic, he/she has an option to start a revolution -- at which point he goes back to square 1 of the technology tree and has to tease out the specific for whatever governmental type he / she wants. That'd be realistic as there is definitely a learning curve after a revolution!

Does that make sense?

Ahh, that sounds brilliant! Or perhaps not the entiry tree, but the branch covering the certain "cross-roadtechnology" or whatever you want to call it.
In a nutshell; if a player who've choosen Fascism finds out that he'd rather take the benefits of Liberalism, he has to "go back" and research Liberalism instead, and scrap the benefits of Fascism and lose a couple of turns researching the other alternative? Is that what you mean?

[mcl.denis]

In a nutshell; if a player who've choosen Fascism finds out that he'd rather take the benefits of Liberalism, he has to "go back" and research Liberalism instead, and scrap the benefits of Fascism and lose a couple of turns researching the other alternative? Is that what you mean?

That's a BINGO!

[Bennamisi]

That's a BINGO!

Excellent

[Edmundrw]

In a nutshell; if a player who've choosen Fascism finds out that he'd rather take the benefits of Liberalism, he has to "go back" and research Liberalism instead, and scrap the benefits of Fascism and lose a couple of turns researching the other alternative? Is that what you mean?

Ouch! That's fine in an historical model I guess but in game terms that's pretty darn punishing. Isn't this 'process of relearning' supposed to take place in the turn(s) of anarchy?
Also, can you think of any historical or theoretical examples of this other than Liberalism/Fascism? Moving from Hereditary rule to representation causes you to lose Monarchy perhaps? - would you lose your winaries??
As a general rule I don't tend to backtrack on civics much at all, I progress along them as they seem to show up for when they're needed and by the time you discover another one that tends to be the most appropriate. (exceptions: I change my religion civic the most if I have a religion, but I often play with no state religion & get on free religion ASAP)
Obviously civics will function differently in Civ V from IV but I'm having a hard time reconciling this to concrete game situations at the moment.

[fatgordy]

Wow. Great idea Bannamisi and mcl.denis. However, I think what you guys are describing is kind of a more robust civics implementation. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a great idea. I just wonder if there is a practical way to implement it in the game that would make it both realistic and playable.

On kind of the same note, I always thought that in the beginning of the game when civilizations were spread out and had little contact, there should be a very diversified tech tree per civilization. Each Civ should have drastically different techs and military units available to them. Then as time progesses and civs start to trade techs, the tree begins to merge.

Or, What if there were leader trait specific techs that were only available to a leader with the same trait? Or techs that could only be researched by a specific Civilization, but could be traded to any Civ?

Just throwing around some ideas. Great post!

[Bob Ilyani]

That's a BINGO!

Is that how you say it? That's a bingo? lol

Also, since the government types of nations have changed over the course of history, and do in Civ games, I don't think this is a great idea. I wouldn't like changing government types only to find that theres a whole group of techs I don't have.

[mcl.denis]

Not going to lie Bob, I got the idea for the "That's a BINGO" line after seeing your avatar.

But, I think you're right. Perhaps civic types (government at least) could be researched under the "Philosophy" tree, but it takes a few turns for you to receive the full benefit of a given civic. (I know there are generally two turns of anarchy, but perhaps after 2 turns government resumes, 5 turns you are at 50% capacity, 6 turns 60%, etc). And, it would be cool if there was no guarantee a certain government type works (ie you try to transition from communism to democracy and the population disagrees --> government collapse or government reverts). Likewise, I'd like to see the population be able to demand certain civics (ie Poland).

I do like the ideas of certain civic types permitting the different technological advancement (Imperialism allows research which grants colonies, outposts, vassal states, etc).

But I think it'd be nice if once you've researched all types of civics, you can customize as much as you want (ie I want a democratic republic, which is a closed economy, allows for free speech, only state religion, and colonization). But I guess that is very similar to what we had in CivIV.

[andrew.j.busch]

I think the idea of choosing where to fund research (i.e. military, science, or society) rather than what technology you specifically research should be considered. What you actually discover is based on probability. I think it's far more realistic, and would make for a more random and exciting game. You could still choose your paths, as you could push for a war-mongering nation or a cultural one, but it would be less formulaic and predictable. Thoughts?

[Edmundrw]

I don't hate the idea of select a thread + probabilities for tech discovery but I'm extremely concerned that you're going to kill a hell of a lot of the strategy & long-term planning from the game.
I tend to plan 4-10 techs ahead based on my current situation holding steady, then switch things around as I encounter new variables. This is the bulk of Civ IV's macro-strategy. Detailed thought needs to go into what fills that vacuum if tech order is randomised, even if it is based somewhat on situational modifiers.

[JefA]

That could be cool, but is it wholly accurate?

I mean, yes China is a communist country in a one party system, but scholars still know and understand liberalism, capitalism, etc. Right?

And theoretically, as has happened in history, a liberal democracy can then change civics to a fascist government.

This is i am afraid my view. Liberal (well kinda) democracies to Fascist states and not just in 20th Century, Romans ahad a mechaism for the tyrant

I dont think China has a free press .. but they know what one is.. its benefits and dangers

In Britain we dont quite have a police state.. but we know what one is.

[AykayUK]

Im sorry but i'm not a fan of the crossroad tech idea.

Ideas and technology can be discovered by a nation without being implemented. Karl Marx, a German, is largely considered the founder of modern communism, and alot of his ideas are considered to have been developed from his experiences in British industrial cities.

So you could definitely argue that Communism is a central European idea inspired by western European life, but Communism did not actually grab hold in those areas, even though his and other peoples ideas were widely published and known by academics and those of the political population.

Im happy with the idea that different political and economic decisions should make your nation more unique, but I think its the civics system that should be altered, not the tech tree.

[slowtarget]

In Civilization 4, correct me if i'm wrong, all technologies were available as long as you made the research, or trade available to it.
I think in some points, this was a quite un-realistic and oversimplified system. It made no sense that i could research Liberalism, and then discover Fascism, while still enjoying the benefits of Liberalism, while these, logically, can't co-exist in a society.

They can't?

I envy your life in Finland. Here in the US we just spent 8 years being told that it was unpatriotic to question the president and that protecting the homeland was more important that maintaining our personal freedoms. At the same time, people were fighting for basic human rights of homosexuals. A few years later, and our president is pressing for socialized healthcare while "news" show anchors cry about the fact that "progressives" are weakening the country.

That sure sounds like the co-existence of the ideals of fascism and socialism to me.

I guess I can see some room for opinions here. I never saw researching a technology to be the same as a global application of that technology to my civilization. I mean, even after I finished researching Archery, it took me hundreds of years to actually start using archers. Just because I researched Railroads doesn't mean that all my roads were converted to railroads. Why would researching Fascism mean that I converted my government to Fascism?

The ideas of Fascism and Liberalism and Communism are not so infectious (despite what many people might say) that merely knowing about them compels you to adhere to them. I can read Machiavelli or Marx or Locke and understand the reasons behind the philosophy while still choosing not to adopt them. Or I can choose to adopt only the parts that are of value to me.