Research / science in games

[Chris]

Separate progressive cost fields (fields) - the most popular, there are several fields (computers, chemistry, biology) each has a level. Next levels of each field cost more research points. A level in a field can unlock technologies (might require some level in other fields too). The con is that all players have almost identical technologies since it promotes equal progression of all fields.

Combined progressive cost fields (fields) - very rare, there are several fields as above, but the cost of fields is affected by the total levels of all fields (so if you develop computers to level 2 you will have to pay to invent your level 1 biology as if it costed level 3). The pros is that technologies among players are different, it force players to carefully consider what to choose. I have seen it only once in Colonization (the choice of founding fathers).

Tech tree (technologies) - some diagram and dependences. The cost of technologies/inventions might be fixed or progressive (Civilization probably has wighted progressive cost). It allows some differences between players. The con is the difficulty of presenting the dependences (a lot opf scrolling and messed up diagram).
Alternatively there could be eras (Civilization III) where after developing certain number of inventions (but not all) a new ara with new technologies group is unlocked.

Tech tree with alternative requirements (technologies) - In Civilization IV you have an option to reach most techs via two routes (you have AND / OR combination of requirements). It does not change the strategy much in a long term, but for short term it makes a difference. But to draw the diagram properly... it would be a nightmar. In Civ4 they cheated and the diagram shows only some dependences but techs have also an icon of "additional requirement" (from lower tiers only, I think) that is not graphed on the diagram. So guessing what exactly you will need for later techs is hard.

Separate progressive cost technologies (technologies) - there is a list of technologies each cost more than previous, no matter which one you bought the cost on next one increases. It is rarely used in it's purest form, usually combined with tech tree (early version of my Lords had it, if you know of any games that use such system post). The pros is that players technologies are very different. The con is that worse technologies will not be picked at all (balancing).

Mutually exclusive technologies within separate progressive fields (fields & technologies) - only in Master of Orion II, there are several fields, the cost is progressive to increase level of a field. The trick is that each level of field have exactly 3 technologies and you have to choose exactly one (some races can select them all). This results in extremly high diversification of technologies between players. Also some players hated this concept.



Add other models if I missed any. Also post if you know how to produce new good mixes.



Conclusion.
There are two notions. One to make it easy and pleasant to players by allowing them to unlock all technologies as they desire and not force them to think too much. The other is to make it impossible to obtain all technologies (even to the extend of mutually exclusive choices) which forces extreme thinking and causes displeasure of some players.
Which is better? Which one would you choose for your strategy game?

[Topazan]

The model used in Empire Earth 2:
-The technology is split into eras.
-To advance eras, players must have researched a certain amount of technology from that era.  Advancing eras provides an immediate upgrade to unit and building strength, and may unlock some new types.
-Each individual technology provides a bonus of some sort that lasts the entire game.
-Once the player has advanced to the next era, he cannot go back and research any of the technologies from previous eras.

Essentially, a player has the choice of racing through the eras to get to the end game ahead of their opponents or thoroughly researching each era's tech so they're stronger when they reach the end game.

It's hard to say which one I'd choose.  Restricting the technology adds another element to the strategy, but it also makes it harder to balance and more likely that content will be ignored.

How about this, tech is divided into eras, and each era has multiple tech trees of which each player can only pursue one?  They would reflect a specialization for that era.  There could be a military tree, and economic tree, and a social tree, or perhaps they could be based on different cultures.  The trees would overlap when necessary.  That limits the possibilities so it's easier to balance. 

[Winawer]

Separate progressive cost fields (fields) - the most popular, there are several fields (computers, chemistry, biology) each has a level. Next levels of each field cost more research points. A level in a field can unlock technologies (might require some level in other fields too). The con is that all players have almost identical technologies since it promotes equal progression of all fields.

One way to spice this up would be different costs for different fields. That way players would get to choose between researching x levels of technology A or y levels of technology B, possibly leading to some variation in tech progression.

Also, having two or more similar technology fields might be used. For example, the player could choose between different weapon type technologies, like lasers or missiles, that would both give a similar firepower increase to weapons, but lasers would be more accurate and missiles would have longer range when fitted on units. This would be kind of similar to the mutually exclusive technologies, without actually being exclusive (you can research all similar fields, but it's kind of a waste).

[Chris]

How about this, tech is divided into eras, and each era has multiple tech trees of which each player can only pursue one?  They would reflect a specialization for that era.  There could be a military tree, and economic tree, and a social tree, or perhaps they could be based on different cultures.  The trees would overlap when necessary.  That limits the possibilities so it's easier to balance. 

Separate exclusive types of trees is not very good I think... I would rather go for mixed types. I mean, at the beginning you always want to research economy technologies, later switch to military so you can make a strike. That's the typical flow of a typical game. If you force player to choose between good military or poor economy at the beginning you will just cause frustration since the player has to choose the poor economy... The technology should never restrict players strategic goals (I need a new weapon, I have a valid choice to choose some weapon now, maybe not the best one, but still a weapon that let me do my bidding).

Essentially, a player has the choice of racing through the eras to get to the end game ahead of their opponents or thoroughly researching each era's tech so they're stronger when they reach the end game.

I would do: you can go back (maybe some technology for this?),  but the old techs will cost as if these were the most expensive from the last era. This way players are not frustrated so much by "losing" techs but still are forced to do the same decisions you mentioned (unlikely that at the late game they would be able to go back and buy all the missed techs for the expensive price).

Also, having two or more similar technology fields might be used. For example, the player could choose between different weapon type technologies, like lasers or missiles, that would both give a similar firepower increase to weapons, but lasers would be more accurate and missiles would have longer range when fitted on units. This would be kind of similar to the mutually exclusive technologies, without actually being exclusive (you can research all similar fields, but it's kind of a waste).

But this mean you add only 1 decision for a player (missiles vs lasers fields choice), and to do this you have to develop 2 separate fields with dozens of technologies where only 50% will be used. It is an extreme waste of content.

I would go instead for: technologies are grouped by 5, player choose 3 of them. Now the unused content is 2/5 and number of choices is very high (1+2+3 or 1+2+4 or 1+2+5 or...)

Or to add even more flexibility/choices. Players choose 2 only and can choose the 3rd for a higher price (or maybe make it progressive: 1st cost the least the 5th the most?) so you decide when you progress to the next level.

[Winawer]

Also, having two or more similar technology fields might be used. For example, the player could choose between different weapon type technologies, like lasers or missiles, that would both give a similar firepower increase to weapons, but lasers would be more accurate and missiles would have longer range when fitted on units. This would be kind of similar to the mutually exclusive technologies, without actually being exclusive (you can research all similar fields, but it's kind of a waste).

But this mean you add only 1 decision for a player (missiles vs lasers fields choice), and to do this you have to develop 2 separate fields with dozens of technologies where only 50% will be used. It is an extreme waste of content.

It's less of a waste than exclusive fields, though. It also possibly allows a technology switch mid-game if the game has shifted towards a strategy that is not beneficial to your tech choice (for example, your main enemies are going mainly for fighters and your missiles can't hit them, so you switch to beams instead).

[Topazan]

Separate exclusive types of trees is not very good I think... I would rather go for mixed types. I mean, at the beginning you always want to research economy technologies, later switch to military so you can make a strike. That's the typical flow of a typical game. If you force player to choose between good military or poor economy at the beginning you will just cause frustration since the player has to choose the poor economy... The technology should never restrict players strategic goals (I need a new weapon, I have a valid choice to choose some weapon now, maybe not the best one, but still a weapon that let me do my bidding).

That's why I said you'd have different eras, so players can pick the tree they think they'll need during a given stage of the game.  I was thinking it could be balanced, like classes in RPGs.  

One tree doesn't necessarily need to exclude the other fields entirely.  For example, the Stone Age military tree could have economic technologies in the form of improved weapons for hunting and social in the form of warrior codes, while the economic tree could allow construction of military fortifications and social temples, while the social tree could include psych warfare stuff to help the military side and astrological calendars used to help farming for the economic side.

It was just a thought though.  It may end up being pretty hard to balance.

I would do: you can go back (maybe some technology for this?),  but the old techs will cost as if these were the most expensive from the last era. This way players are not frustrated so much by "losing" techs but still are forced to do the same decisions you mentioned (unlikely that at the late game they would be able to go back and buy all the missed techs for the expensive price).

Well, Empire Earth was an RTS, so it had a faster pace than the 4x games you referenced in your first post.  For that reason, the psychological effects of failing 100% completion were reduced.  Furthermore, with one or two exceptions, the techs didn't unlock new content, they just gave small bonuses to stats.  Only advancing eras unlocked new content for the most part.

But, what you say doesn't seem like a bad idea.  If it was a tech, what would it be called?  

[Chris]

It's less of a waste than exclusive fields, though. It also possibly allows a technology switch mid-game if the game has shifted towards a strategy that is not beneficial to your tech choice (for example, your main enemies are going mainly for fighters and your missiles can't hit them, so you switch to beams instead).

If you are in need to switch such important thing in the middle of the game you are doomed anyway. Its better to just restart/reload the game...
The only exception is if this was a natural switch due to flow of the game (like missiles and beams in MMO2).

I generally loathe all forms of massive disabling technologies. Maybe because it will be me who will have to code so much more technologies to replace the ones not available for a player

I would do: you can go back (maybe some technology for this?),  but the old techs will cost as if these were the most expensive from the last era. This way players are not frustrated so much by "losing" techs but still are forced to do the same decisions you mentioned (unlikely that at the late game they would be able to go back and buy all the missed techs for the expensive price).

Well, Empire Earth was an RTS, so it had a faster pace than the 4x games you referenced in your first post.  For that reason, the psychological effects of failing 100% completion were reduced.  Furthermore, with one or two exceptions, the techs didn't unlock new content, they just gave small bonuses to stats.  Only advancing eras unlocked new content for the most part.

But, what you say doesn't seem like a bad idea.  If it was a tech, what would it be called?  

"Retrofit"

[Topazan]

"Retrofit" 

That makes sense actually.  In the sense of improving equipment that was rushed to production too early....

I was thinking it was going to be something like "archaeology" or "historical reenactment".   

[pixlepix]

If any of you have seen impedrion research system, I think that is the best. Baisically, you can research everything given eneough time, but researcing something is so time consuming, and there is np way to directly speed it up, only by building research centers. It forces players to make choices on what to do.

[Chris]

If any of you have seen impedrion research system, I think that is the best. Baisically, you can research everything given eneough time, but researcing something is so time consuming, and there is np way to directly speed it up, only by building research centers. It forces players to make choices on what to do.

It's separate progressive cost fields, but they have a huge number of fields also fields are max 10 level and there are plenty of 1 level only fields. The nice twist is that the fields are grouped and player is forced to research at least some fields from all groups. But I'm not sure if this gives and decision to players, also it will get broken if you have a lot of planets and high research capability (no real cost progression) and there is no unlocking of anything (everything available from the start). In a long run and if you were to replay the game several times it would get boring.

But if you like it, you like it and no amount of me disagreeing with it will change this

[pixlepix]

 also it will get broken if you have a lot of planets and high research capability

not really, due to later techonologies costing fair amounts of points, so it takes a bunch of time to get them all, far more the the game round.


and there is no unlocking of anything (everything available from the start).

In theory, yes. However progressive costs of technologies means that you wont, for example, research bombers in the beginning

In a long run and if you were to replay the game several times it would get boring.

Not really, as, wha you research heavily depends on your situation. For example, right now I am facing alot of players who are stocking up on turrets, so I am researching missles. But in a different situation, I might be researching energy

[Chris]

also it will get broken if you have a lot of planets and high research capability

not really, due to later techonologies costing fair amounts of points, so it takes a bunch of time to get them all, far more the the game round.

I see, with res points < round time it makes sense.
Maybe write something more from players perspective? For example how you feel about the separation of fields and the forced minimum res points per not focused fields, does it make you play different?

[pixlepix]

Not really. while it might give a sub-consious affect, I have never made a decision based on it. You could do it without the different research types, though I like them as they make you commit to your decision. For example, you have saved up for a week to get bombers, but you discover that you desperatly need more fusion levels

[Chris]

What you think about separate "research" and "implementation"? Like first you research (res points) penicilin and then you have to make some project (money, resources) that will implement the new invention in your hospitals. I'm not taking about researching a new construction level and then an upgrade option for each building appear. I'm talking more about abstract concepts that can not be associated directly with upgrading military units or buildings, or if we don't want them to be applied separately to every single building/unit.

The best example of this were minor wonders in Civilization. After you researched something you get and option to make a sort of "building" (police headquarted for example), but you could build only one such "building/project" so it was not really a building.

This makes a connection between research and industry. You don't only need to invent something, you also need to spend resources to implement it.

Is this concept worth pursuing?

[dsheroh]

What you think about separate "research" and "implementation"? Like first you research (res points) penicilin and then you have to make some project (money, resources) that will implement the new invention in your hospitals.

Personally, I tend to like that sort of mechanic, but...

I'm not taking about researching a new construction level and then an upgrade option for each building appear. I'm talking more about abstract concepts that can not be associated directly with upgrading military units or buildings, or if we don't want them to be applied separately to every single building/unit.

...one of the things I liked most about M.A.X. was that, when you researched a unit upgrade, you then needed to bring your units back to a supply depot before they would receive the improvement.  (For building upgrades, the building just needed to be in supply and there was an "upgrade all" option to save you from having to do each building individually.)  I've always been bothered by games where learning how to build a bigger gun caused all your units, no matter how far behind enemy lines they might be, to magically get their weapons replaced with the bigger gun the instant it was developed.  So, as usual, my opinion might not be entirely relevant to what you're doing...

[Chris]

...one of the things I liked most about M.A.X. was that, when you researched a unit upgrade, you then needed to bring your units back to a supply depot before they would receive the improvement.  (For building upgrades, the building just needed to be in supply and there was an "upgrade all" option to save you from having to do each building individually.)  I've always been bothered by games where learning how to build a bigger gun caused all your units, no matter how far behind enemy lines they might be, to magically get their weapons replaced with the bigger gun the instant it was developed.  So, as usual, my opinion might not be entirely relevant to what you're doing...

In BBGs the movement speed is extremely high (like hours for your army to reach the destination and return while you play for months). So the upgrade only at home base would be irrelevant and no restriction at all...


Found another model: Tech tree with alternative requirements - In Civilization IV you have an option to reach most techs via two routes (you have AND / OR combination of requirements). It does not change much in a long term, but for short term it makes a difference. But to draw the diagram properly... it would be a nightmare In Civ4 they cheated and the diagram shows only some dependences but techs have also an icon of "additional requirement" (from lower tiers only, I think) that is not graphed on the diagram. So guessing what exactly you will need for later techs is hard.

[CygnusX]

My plan for this is to allow players to unlock groups of technologies at a time.  For example:

Military Techs
-Offensive Power ++ Tech
-Defensive Power ++ Tech
... Etc

Espionage Techs
-Spy Power ++ Tech
-Patrol Power ++ Tech
... Etc

Magic Techs
-Buffs/Debuffs
-Destruction Magic
-Summoning Magic
... Etc

Economic Techs
-Production ++
-Building Cost--
etc...

Etc, Etc

As you advance, you are allowed to choose a category to research techs from.  Researching 1 tech will cause all other techs in all other categories to increase in cost.  This is similar to your game of Lords, but instead of having progressive Tech groups, you're allowed to skip around.

Overall though, I plan on adopting the 'you can't get every tech in the game' approach.  Rather, I'm targeting around 1/3 to 1/2 of all techs being feasible to obtain.  The idea is to increase the diversity amongst players in terms of techs they have obtained.