One of the things that defines 4x games, be it Civ X, Endless, or Paradox games is the fixed approach to research and the singularity this creates for games. Granted, I am a tech junky always looking to research the hell out of whatever science is on offer (Cough, Sophons), so it would be awesome if there could be a culturally adaptive research tree that gives you a different experience you play the game depending on what mix and blend of cultures you pick. 

A good example of this is the approach Paradox took with Europa Universallis 4 and Imperiator, though even then the trees are quite limited and not hugely adaptive. I appreciate that this would take a lot of dev resources to implement, and potentially could be a DLC, but a plug-and-play tech tree for each culture/epoch would allow for a different game experience each time you play. 

You could keep a core set of research for basic tech, and then each culture gets their own specifics, which would evolve the current Endless model whereby each race gets unique techs. This would also open up avenues for trading tech and ideas, and allow those science junkies to hunt down interesting and novel techs.

If they did go this route, or even if they don't, there should be a way to get other cultures' techs without having to trade for them, such as spies or reverse engineering them after beating them in combat.

This will be a bit of a duplicate to a post I made on another thread, but looking at real history, "trade secrets" just isn't a thing.  You invent something, you get some temproary benefit from being the first to the technology, then everybody in contact with you duplicates it.

I'd be much more interested in a game system that creates interesting mechanics around the commonality of human knowledge.  Society-unique technology sounds like something better suited to a sci fi setting, personally. 

TravlingCanuck wrote:

This will be a bit of a duplicate to a post I made on another thread, but looking at real history, "trade secrets" just isn't a thing.  You invent something, you get some temproary benefit from being the first to the technology, then everybody in contact with you duplicates it.

Reminds me of how Europa Universalis 4 does tech and the "reforms" or whatever it was called. Neighbor has higher tech? You get a small boost towards it. Feudalism hasnt hit you? Neighbors will spread it to you and certain parameters in regions and cities will also cause a boost. I thought that was great, but i dont know how something similar to that would work here...

I agree, though this is just as much about adding flavour and difference as it is reality. Maybe an approach similar to CK2 where neighbours get progress as the research travels along communication channels .

I really like these ideas, as it feels more 'lifelike', as well as adding an element of fun and unpredictability. Plus, you could find ancient ruins from earlier ages, like those in EL2, which could aid with research points, culture etc.

Dinode wrote:

Alternatively, you could learn to make "knock off" versions of enemy units or buildings that are weaker than the ones you did the research on. Units would have 3/4 the strength of the original, buildings would have a fraction of the output, etc. Oh, you could even combine the 2 by having a quest give you the option to either immediately make a knockoff of an item or gain a "tech" to research that gives you a full version of that item without contributing to the actual tech.

Edit: Actually, this would be a good way to make scouts useful later in the game. Give them the ability to move invisibly inside enemy territory and a "probe" slot that can be used to hold one "secret" that can be used to gain a research bonus or knockoff if returned to your territory, but they become visible and alert the enemy when they pick up that secret.

It also depends on what you want from research, as if the whole idea is to progress and unlock tech, this could be a way of adding flavour to the game without being too 'gamey'. One thing that differentiates Amplitude's games from other 4x is the uniqueness of each faction, and given human history has thrown up some very odd cultures, it is not inconceivable that a tech tree flow through the ages could help add in that extra flavour, while also helping give a unqiue flavour through each run through.

In game terms, there are at least three things at work in 'spreading technology'. First and foremost is having a Need for the technology. For example, the Chinese had gunpowder and iron casting technologies, but never developed Bombards, because their city walls were built larely from Rammed Earth - and were 30 - 50 feet thick. Shoot a large stone or iron ball at them, it simply embedded itself and the wall remained undamaged. Europeans, having large numbers of stone 'curtain' walls and towers to attack, quickly developed gunpowder weapons that fired solid shot to batter those walls and towers down. Consequently, starting from the same Technology, but having different Needs, European armies wound up with Bombards to batter down stone fortifications while Chinese armies had various forms of fireworks and gunpowder-based flammable missiles fired from trebuchets to clear the top of the massive earthen walls so they could be scaled.

Same basic problem - taking a city - but because of differences in development, two divergent Technologies.

Second big thing at work is having the capability to incorporate the technology. Greeks developed crossbows at the beginning of the 5th century BCE (we can date it pretty precisely, because the crossbow was one of the inventions that came out of Dionysus of Syracuse's Ortygian Worshop, the first Military Research establishment in the world) - about the same time it appears in Chinese texts. In China the crossbow became the predominent ranged infantry and cavalry weapon. In the Greek and Roman world, it was occasionally used in sieges, but otherwise virtually ignored. Reason: the Greeks and Romans both had a military built around close-quarters fighting. Their infantry closed with the enemy as fast as they could and slugged it out at sword and spear range. In that tactical environment, a slow-loading crossbow might get off one shot before the opponent was carving his initials in the crossbowman's liver. It simply couldn't be used effectvely without changing everything else about the tactical system in use.

Third thing, which becomes more common after the Industrial Era, is being able to apply the technology when application requires major industrial investment and resources that you don't have. Many examples, but a prime one would be World War Two era medium tanks. Everybody knew what a tank was, what technologies went into it, but by 1945 only 5 countries in the world had managed to produce a medium (25 ton weight or heavier) tank: USA, Britain, Germany, Soviet Union, and France. The industrial infrastructure required to produce engines, transmissions, tracked chassis, armor plate, internal communications and other mechanisms and tank cannon suitable for those vehicles was simply beyond everyone else in the world. Smilar examples could be produced for Battleships, Aircraft Carriers, 4-wheel drive vehicles in quantity, all of which were Prime military technologies that were never 'secrets' but were simply beyond the industrial capacty of most states.

IvantheTolerable wrote:

In game terms, there are at least three things at work in 'spreading technology'. First and foremost is having a Need for the technology. For example, the Chinese had gunpowder and iron casting technologies, but never developed Bombards, because their city walls were built larely from Rammed Earth - and were 30 - 50 feet thick. Shoot a large stone or iron ball at them, it simply embedded itself and the wall remained undamaged. Europeans, having large numbers of stone 'curtain' walls and towers to attack, quickly developed gunpowder weapons that fired solid shot to batter those walls and towers down. Consequently, starting from the same Technology, but having different Needs, European armies wound up with Bombards to batter down stone fortifications while Chinese armies had various forms of fireworks and gunpowder-based flammable missiles fired from trebuchets to clear the top of the massive earthen walls so they could be scaled.

Same basic problem - taking a city - but because of differences in development, two divergent Technologies.

Second big thing at work is having the capability to incorporate the technology. Greeks developed crossbows at the beginning of the 5th century BCE (we can date it pretty precisely, because the crossbow was one of the inventions that came out of Dionysus of Syracuse's Ortygian Worshop, the first Military Research establishment in the world) - about the same time it appears in Chinese texts. In China the crossbow became the predominent ranged infantry and cavalry weapon. In the Greek and Roman world, it was occasionally used in sieges, but otherwise virtually ignored. Reason: the Greeks and Romans both had a military built around close-quarters fighting. Their infantry closed with the enemy as fast as they could and slugged it out at sword and spear range. In that tactical environment, a slow-loading crossbow might get off one shot before the opponent was carving his initials in the crossbowman's liver. It simply couldn't be used effectvely without changing everything else about the tactical system in use.

Third thing, which becomes more common after the Industrial Era, is being able to apply the technology when application requires major industrial investment and resources that you don't have. Many examples, but a prime one would be World War Two era medium tanks. Everybody knew what a tank was, what technologies went into it, but by 1945 only 5 countries in the world had managed to produce a medium (25 ton weight or heavier) tank: USA, Britain, Germany, Soviet Union, and France. The industrial infrastructure required to produce engines, transmissions, tracked chassis, armor plate, internal communications and other mechanisms and tank cannon suitable for those vehicles was simply beyond everyone else in the world. Smilar examples could be produced for Battleships, Aircraft Carriers, 4-wheel drive vehicles in quantity, all of which were Prime military technologies that were never 'secrets' but were simply beyond the industrial capacty of most states.

Okay, lets look at ways we can impliment these historical ideas into Humankind.

1. Need for tech. Since the example you gave had every civ face a slightly different challenge, one way to reflect this is to have more techs than needed. Amplitude's games have historically done a good job at this with some techs simply giving bonuses to things like movement or how large an army you can field. For instance, if your culture is landlocked you don't have to research naval techs, and if you gain access to water you won't have to research all the early naval techs to get to the advanced ones. You also don't need to research every kind of unit, just the ones that will be tactically useful for the kind of wars you expect to fight, e.g. mounted units could be skipped if you are in a heavily mountainous or forested area or if your opponant already uses a lot of spearmen. Finally, you can have multiple options for building types useful for different things, such as coal plants being cheap if you have the coal or hydropower being useful if you have rivers, or getting both to really up production. Basically, Amplitude is already ahead of the game in this department, no need to worry about this.
2. Synergy of tech. Given how Humankind wants to allow a mishmash of different kinds of tech I feel that this is the opposite of the direction they want to go, but let's think about what we could do to replicate this. Perhaps cities could gain "experience" building certain kinds of units? Basically, the instructors of that city would grow used to training with certain weapon types, such as arrows and other ranged weaponry, and would either create higher levels of those units when making more or could produce them cheaper. Or you could have it so that certain disruptive techs have a chance of decreasing stability for a while when first invented if your people don't like the changes coming about, such as having Luddites raising a ruckus when early steam power comes out. You could also have certain techs mutually exclusive, or at least make it so that researching one makes the other more expensive. For instance, you could research a tech that gives movement bonuses and extra damage to melee units at the cost of techs for ranged units becoming more expensive for the rest of the era. Again, I don't think they'll want to do too much in this direction, but there are a few options.
3. Non-tech requirements to use tech. Basically, strategic resources, another thing Amplitude has done well.  could imagine setting up a system that lets you build derivitive resources, such as steel or computer chips, that you can buy and sell on the market, even automating it so that if you don't have enough of a particular resource it will tell you how much you can spend to buy that resource, although that risks getting into being like an economy sim ala Offworld Trading Company. You could also require connections between cities to pass on strategic resources from either the source or from wherever your resources are being stockpiled, with higher quality roads, ships, or airports allowing for more resources to be used at once or accelerating production of that type of unit. Finally, you could have special buildings that essentially double the amount of a strategic resource you have, such a steel mill doubling your iron produced in the region or a refinery doubling the oil in the region. This is something that will require a little thought, but the tools are already there.

Dinode wrote:

Okay, lets look at ways we can impliment these historical ideas into Humankind.

1. Need for tech. Since the example you gave had every civ face a slightly different challenge, one way to reflect this is to have more techs than needed. Amplitude's games have historically done a good job at this with some techs simply giving bonuses to things like movement or how large an army you can field. For instance, if your culture is landlocked you don't have to research naval techs, and if you gain access to water you won't have to research all the early naval techs to get to the advanced ones. You also don't need to research every kind of unit, just the ones that will be tactically useful for the kind of wars you expect to fight, e.g. mounted units could be skipped if you are in a heavily mountainous or forested area or if your opponant already uses a lot of spearmen. Finally, you can have multiple options for building types useful for different things, such as coal plants being cheap if you have the coal or hydropower being useful if you have rivers, or getting both to really up production. Basically, Amplitude is already ahead of the game in this department, no need to worry about this.
2. Synergy of tech. Given how Humankind wants to allow a mishmash of different kinds of tech I feel that this is the opposite of the direction they want to go, but let's think about what we could do to replicate this. Perhaps cities could gain "experience" building certain kinds of units? Basically, the instructors of that city would grow used to training with certain weapon types, such as arrows and other ranged weaponry, and would either create higher levels of those units when making more or could produce them cheaper. Or you could have it so that certain disruptive techs have a chance of decreasing stability for a while when first invented if your people don't like the changes coming about, such as having Luddites raising a ruckus when early steam power comes out. You could also have certain techs mutually exclusive, or at least make it so that researching one makes the other more expensive. For instance, you could research a tech that gives movement bonuses and extra damage to melee units at the cost of techs for ranged units becoming more expensive for the rest of the era. Again, I don't think they'll want to do too much in this direction, but there are a few options.
3. Non-tech requirements to use tech. Basically, strategic resources, another thing Amplitude has done well.  could imagine setting up a system that lets you build derivitive resources, such as steel or computer chips, that you can buy and sell on the market, even automating it so that if you don't have enough of a particular resource it will tell you how much you can spend to buy that resource, although that risks getting into being like an economy sim ala Offworld Trading Company. You could also require connections between cities to pass on strategic resources from either the source or from wherever your resources are being stockpiled, with higher quality roads, ships, or airports allowing for more resources to be used at once or accelerating production of that type of unit. Finally, you could have special buildings that essentially double the amount of a strategic resource you have, such a steel mill doubling your iron produced in the region or a refinery doubling the oil in the region. This is something that will require a little thought, but the tools are already there.

Good thoughts.

1.   Need is the biggest driver of Technological Progress, IMHO: "Necessity is the Mother of Invention". Also, there's something to the idea that "Familiarity Breeds Attempt": If you live by the Sea, there's a huge temptation to Make Use Of It, leading to Fishing, Netting, Boating, Sailing, and other Nautical Technologies.

A possibility is to tie part of Tech Development to the terrain/game map surroundings. Civ VI has "Eurekas" giving bonuses to Tech Development based on what happened in the game. You could also turn that around and make it Impossible to develop certain technologies by yourself if your surroundings don't provide a reason. I don't know of any culture living far from the sea that developed seagoing boats - far too much work, when all you need is a raft to exploit the local river for fish. This sort of thing could get pretty complicated/specific.

So, for example, Nautical Techs could be closed to a Civ/Culture that never ventured into a Coastal region while nomadic and never settled a city with X distance of the Coast. BUT contact with a Culture of coastal traders or discovery of coastal resources for exploitation would 'open' some of the Nautical Technologies. Major Loot from trading or the necessity to defend against coastal raiders might be another Impulse openning up more Nautical Tech.

Historical Example: Early Egypt developed pretty substantial reed boats on the Nile (strong enough to float stone monuments down the river), but never ventured far into the open sea - Egypt produced enough lucrative trade goods that Minoans, Phoenicians, and later Greeks built ships and came to Egypt to trade. BUT when the Ptolemaic Dynasty of Egypt wanted to control the eastern Mediterranean, they imported required timber, invested massively in 'borrowed' technologies, and built the second-largest fleet in the Med - but virtually none of the technology required was Egyptian: the shps were Quinqueremes and Hexaremes invented by the Greeks and Macedonians, the catapults on board came right out of the Ortygian Workshop in Syracuse, and the naval tactics used at Actium were from the polyreme battles between Rome and Carthage.

2.   Synergy, I think, ties right into the In-Game Situation influencing Tech Development. This could be the Map (as in the example above, stay in the Desert and Nautical Tech is a non-starter) but could also be things your Civ/Culture does or has done to it. If you are fighting a horse-mounted enemy, you have a Huge Incentive to develop cavalry - or machineguns, but cavalry is easier for at least the first few thousand years of the game. This, in turn, may change your Culture: see the development of the North American plains tribes after they got horses from the Spanish: not only did their warfare change dramatically, but their entire lifestyle, and it all changed in about a single century.

The trick here is to avoid Gamyness: giving the gamer reason to do stupid things because they give a potential bonus in the game, like picking a fight with the Scythians or Huns because you want to learn Horseback Riding faster.

3.   Strategic Resources aren't the only 'requirements' for Tech. Culture and even Religion can produce Requirements. If, to take a particularly Ugly Example, your religion requires Human Sacrifices, you will be shoved in the direction of developing techniques of combat that are good enough to raid your neighbors for Victims. If your Culture includes a Heroic Warrior Ethos (which is found in cultures all over the world) then you will develop and put resources into combat equipment and weapons that emphasizes the individual warrior - like bronze armor, chariots, and swords/spears ala Homeric Warriors, the Samurai Sword and all the technology that went into it. And, those same Heroic Warriors will absolutely abhore the idea of weaponry that destroys their cultural ethos: crossbows, muskets, cannon "The valor of Man is extinguished" as one European nobleman said about gunpowder weapons, but virtually the same quote could also be heard in Japan, China or Turkey concerning those same weapons.

And lack of a resource can stimulate Technology. The examples here are almost endless, but several early ones stand out: Plains/steppe groups had little access to good bow wood, so they developed the Composite Bow using animal products like bone, horn, sinew and glue. This also gave them shorter bows that were easier use on horseback: synergy.

Mesopotamia had little access to large timber for ships, so they built boats out of bundles of reeds, waterproofed them with bitumin or pitch which they did have, and produced boats that could ply the coastal waters as well as the rivers.

Later, when England in the late Medieval period was running out of firewood because every tree near a town or city had alfready been chopped, they started burning coal for heat, and developed chimney/flue technology to do so safely - which came in very handy when they wanted to produce iron in quantity and had no wood for charcoal, but did have massive amounts of coal which could be 'coked' and used. Alternative Technologies leading to later industrial benefits - and negative consequences, when the coal smoke produced the "London Fogs" and Industrial Pollution that Victorian England became (in) famous for.

Dinode wrote:

Edit: Actually, this would be a good way to make scouts useful later in the game. Give them the ability to move invisibly inside enemy territory and a "probe" slot that can be used to hold one "secret" that can be used to gain a research bonus or knockoff if returned to your territory, but they become visible and alert the enemy when they pick up that secret.

On the one hand, it puzzles me why it would be impossible for the Scout to grab that Secret & succeed at their Stealth & stay undetected for no reason at all whatsoever... on the other hand, this sounds like it could act like a Humankind equivalent of a 'Capture the Flag minigame', & since when has Capture the Flag ever failed to be fun?

TyraxLightning wrote:

Dinode wrote:

Edit: Actually, this would be a good way to make scouts useful later in the game. Give them the ability to move invisibly inside enemy territory and a "probe" slot that can be used to hold one "secret" that can be used to gain a research bonus or knockoff if returned to your territory, but they become visible and alert the enemy when they pick up that secret.

On the one hand, it puzzles me why it would be impossible for the Scout to grab that Secret & succeed at their Stealth & stay undetected for no reason at all whatsoever... on the other hand, this sounds like it could act like a Humankind equivalent of a 'Capture the Flag minigame', & since when has Capture the Flag ever failed to be fun?

Maybe the scout could gain the ability to only reveal an item has been stolen but not exactly where the stealer is, or they could have a way to regain stealth.