FANDOM


It would be nice to have the info on how many bulbs are required for that tech only, not the whole branch of requirements.

--Barrett9h 07:33, 27 Feb 2005 (PST)

Right now, this lacks info on The Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.92.74 (talkcontribs)

Indeed, both the game and the wiki don't give easy access to individual tech cost. Typically in the gui you can only see this information when going to actually research the tech, but one of the early game mechanics -- trying to take advantage of first access to Philosophy -- means that you want to know the tech costs of techs that you can't currently research. Philosophy only gives you one free tech, so you want to balance interests to have it be an expensive tech, an important tech, and one that you can actually reach in time to have a decent chance of the freebie. So both information about individual tech costs and path costs is important.

Tech cost should maybe just be put in small type in the corner of each node on the tech tree. And as in the game, so in the wiki. 98.230.163.174 14:36, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

In other words, research ceremonial building to get temples, math to kill barbarians, literacy for the great library, and then shoot for university as free tech for the first philosopher.
Just in case, this is a vintage 2005 thread. As of 2016 the tech tree depends on the ruleset, classic, civ2civ3, etc. There are five choices for ruleset editors how the costs can be determined, a classic formula, a slower (=more expensive) experimental formula, explicit costs per tech (no formula), and two mixes using an implicit (formula) cost unless an explicit value is given. In other words, this isn't really a job for the wiki, because it depends... Or maybe classic (old default) and civ2civ3 (future default) could be handled as special cases here, feel free to try it. –Dunnoob 💩 15:09, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Tech-Tree Edit

Is there anywhere an graphical version of the Technology-Tree? --Trublu 03:53, 2 Nov 2005 (PST)

More Technologies Edit

Wouldn't it be nice, if we had more technologies? My idea was suspension bridges, which allow to build bridges on ocean fields, but only if there are at least two landfields around and opposed to each other. This technology could need Steel to develop. If more people think this idea is good, please add your ideas here (otherwise ignore me ;) ). --88.217.33.100 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, but I wonder which key would be used, as S and B are taken. Of course, Explosives (a contemporary of Steel) allows the O (transform) order, which, when performed on the Ocean, creates a Swamp which can then be irrigated to a Grassland, but
  1. this only applies to squares in a 'V'-shape of land, so attaching two islands can be very impractical, and
  2. ships could be allowed to pass under suspension bridges.
Also, Steel itself could be the prerequisite to this order, with no need for a new technology.
As for new technologies in general, note that you can make some yourself (see Editing Rulesets) and present them to the community to be standardized. --Jesdisciple 23:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't you just use R? you can't build roads on ocean squares anyway, can you? So it could be something that requires bridge-building, steel and an engineer. - 142.167.73.11 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
R would probably work fine, but Steel requires Bridge Building > Railroad > Industrialization. --Jesdisciple (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Factoring out technologiesEdit

Wouldn't it be great if the technology graph were variable, in that one could build a graph and introduce in in the game? Different games could use different graphs (which would lead to different units and the like too, eventually). Writing such a graph ought not to involve any programming, so that non-programmers could make a useful contribution (compare graphics and rule sets). Biep 22:50, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.