What would be a good way to realistically model technological advancement?

What would be a good way to realistically model technological advancement?

Tech trees like in Civ games are a good start because obviously some technologies are built on earlier ones.

But the way you see available technologies, what are their benefits and chose which you want to develop next is not very accurate. It's not like the Sumerians sat down and decided at one point: "ok, let's invent the wheel so we can have chariots later", because they had no idea what wheels or chariots were yet.

So what would be a better way?

The tech tree is just a way to simplify a very abstract concept for the sake of a video game.

There is a lot of wrong here. Agriculture definitely shouldn't be first. Archery, Pottery and Mining could easily develop in Hunter Gatherer societies.

In fact, this is true for our own paleolithic Hunter Gatherers.

2 tech trees, 1 for things people can consciously put their mind to and another for things that are in large part due to chance

for example the Incas and Aztecs developed sophisticated crafts and trades, they could measure the motions of the heavens, build good roads and irrigation systems and other feats, however they were completely unaware of how to smelt iron

conversely tribes in Africa had no large stone buildings or writing system yet could smelt iron

as technology progresses, "chance tech" gets less and less important until scientific method

you also can't invest in technology until the age of reason, instead you cultivate the best conditions for "learning" then hope for the best, with trade centers getting a bonus

technology should also spread more easily

The problem with modeling "advancement" is that the rate of technological advance has been rapidly increasing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution of the 18th century. We're constantly building better tools, and then using those better tools to make even better tools.

that's not a problem, just tweak the amount of research points needed

Put that mechanic like that: 2 tech trees, one about science and the other about technology

>inb4: "WTF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ARE THE SAME SHIT!"
Fucking nope.

how would this be applied in terms of game mechanics, also how would it work in historical periods when scientific method hadn't been fully fleshed out yet

I can't tell you what a good model would be, but tthe tech tree as Civ does it is shit.

Perhaps you could make it less shift by switching shit around and having less/more depedencies in places based around realism rather then game balance, but as is it's retarded.

I've been thinking about this. China had a lot of chance techs due to its population size but not many improvements on widely used technologies.

Technology is a solution to a problem that cannot be solved by the human body alone, some tool needs to be developed.

In trying to find solutions to said problems , those solutions that are being worked on might have other applications . Like the wheel is useful for travel, but it can also be used to apply hydro energy in the form of a water wheel. Or can mill grain to flour. Some people only find solutions "ad-hoc" i.e. the duct tape solution. While others try to think of problems they might encounter in the future.

Proper tech advancement first starts with a problem. And considering tech in civ in relation to user serves this function.

Yes, but the point is that it doesn't reflect how technology actually advances, that it's not a good simplification.

hohols instantly get all techs up to the modern era turn one
hohol mafia

I've been thinking about this, actually.

Pre-Scientific Revolution, discovering technologies would be based on what's available already and what problems need to be solved. So for example, seafaring cultures would need better ships, and so improved ship designs would originate from there. Cultures obsessed with medicine would get a chance to accidentally discover gunpowder, and cultures with lots of mines would develop improved metallurgy. And then those ideas spread based on contact with other areas, mostly through trade, as historically.

Post-scientific revolution, the same mechanics would be in place but there would also be an international "scientific community" interface, where scientists from each country are shown and bounce ideas off one another, and can collaborate on theoretical research. Your country would only gain knowledge of the advances in astronomy, optics, etc. if you have scientists participating, and the more discoveries you make the more prestige points you get.

Then once the body of knowledge is built up enough, the first mechanic takes hold with a vengeance when someone invents steam engines and other industrial-era techs. But this time, it can only spread to countries with the theoretical knowledge necessary to understand it; i.e. those who participate in the scientific community. But those countries can arrange to sell advanced tech to other countries if they want, so maybe they can sell modern weapons to countries which don't have the knowledge to build them yet, or get hired to construct a railway, or something of the sort.

What about the inspiration system in Civ 6? Haven't played it in forever but afaik you get a 50% "discount" on a tech via certain events.
For example researching sailing is easier if you discover a coast, researching currency is easier if you have a trade route, etc.

The whole point is that you found a civilization, and long term civilizations didn't form under hunter gathering. They formed when agriculture arose and people could stay in one place. Hence, agriculture is necessary for any civ to begin.

This. Also implementation of tech you discovered should be based on your resources and general tech level. For example even if you discovered gunpowder you shouldn't be able to spam riflemen everywhere if your infrastructure is shit and have no factories or can't buy weapons (kind of like in Hearts of Iron).

China was exposed to flintlocks for a long time yet never saw widespread adoption, so this is more a case of China's isolation.

Gunpowder would be a "chance tech" while the flintlock mechanism is more an improvement, possibly one depenent on other discoveries. I guess the game mechanics could be that China had a relatively large and developed economy from the Tang dynasty onwards and so invented gunpowder. However from the 14th century onwards the rest of the world saw populations grow and trade flourish and their "chance techs" didn't spread to China until decades or centuries.

True. Geography influences whether you can or need to build an aqueduct, Africa didn't have the resources. In civ games you can discover horse riding despite not having ever seen a horse.

This is an important dynamic that ought to be modelled. Though I am not fond of spending on research points. Maybe "inspiration" should just improve the development rate or chances.

Something akin to Crusader kings 2 would be the best (passive gain in lots of fields), but influenced by traditions, economy, geography, demographics and with branching tree. Also there should be a lot of dead ends and options to perfect the old instead of adapting the new.

The thing is, tech can be wonky sometimes. Japan had the wheel, then forgot how to make it for centuries, made many technological advancements, then learned the wheel again.

Calling it "engineering" rather than "technology" might cause less confusion.

>options to perfect the old
Steampunk!