Thoughts about C+C 3 (yes, already :p)

[Levgre]

Something I think that may be nice in CC 3 is having full tech trading, however,having a house rule, so to speak.  You'd only be able to trade techs that were 2 ages earlier than your current age.

So if you were in the Modern era, you could trade Renaissance and earlier techs. If you are in the  Renaissance era, classical+ancient techs.  Medieval era, only ancient techs.

This would allow less advanced nations to be given a leg up, especially any civ that was put into exile at an earlier point in the game, so fell greatly behind in research, or just had a bad start but turned things around later.

Tech leaders wouldn't typically trade, although perhaps one would skip sailing, for example, until the Renaissance, and get it from another medieval/Renaissance civ.  But that would hardly be game breaking.


What do people think?  Other suggestions for CC 3 could be put in this thread also.

[oyzar]

Sounds rather hard to go with house rules like that as it is very hard to enforce...

No tech trading do have the disadvantage of making it harder for people to catch up and harder for "less competetive" players to stay in the game. While i think no tech trading is better for game balance, tech trading might be better with such a huge variance in skill...

If/when there is a C&C 3 i think it should be with more people on a larger and more balanced map. As it is in this game at least 4-5 people got totally screwed up by awful starting locations, this would not have happened if we had a map script that was more balanced... Surely it is possible to get larger than huge maps(though i guess it might be a problem for performance for some, although since the server handles all the IBT stuff it shouldn't be that bad). With a larger map you could fit in more players.

Certainly it should be easy to find more than the mere 28 people that was in this game making a larger map better...

[Levgre]

Well, you can always tell what people recieve what techs from tech trading, as you can check in foreign advisor what techs people have from turn to turn, and also see the point increases on civstats.  You can then determine pretty closely what tech was given by the amount of points, so sailing would give like 8 or 10, rifling would give 30 or something.



So the only time when things would be ambiguous, is when there is, say, 1 person in the renassiance era, and 1 person in the modern era.  The renassiance guy could gift a medieval tech, even though the rule would disallow it, and "pretend" they were one of the modern players giving the tech.  However, if people took credit for the techs they gave, when this ambiguity came about, you could stop anyone from trading "illegally", as a player who could trade that same tech legally would have to give credit.


And then the whole honor system goes pretty far in making so you don't have to check who gave/received techs, most of the time.  You'd have to have two people willing to cheat for an illegal tech trade, the person that accepts, and the person that gives.

[da_Vinci]

Glaukos, are you that close to your victory?   

This only trade techs that are below your current era essentially limits "trading" to gifts from the powerful to the weak, doesn't it?

I think what you want to say is that only techs that are two (or maybe one) era lower than the era of the most advanced player can be traded?

This would allow two medieval players to trade medieval techs with each other, but the two renaisannce players ahead of them cannot trade renaisance techs.

Which is what the weaker civs need to catch up ... the weak civs can form tech alliances to protect themselves against the strong.

Oyzar seems to already police all of these things in all his games, so enforcement should not be a problem (except for who will police oyzar?  )

dV

[Levgre]

"Glaukos, are you that close to your victory?  Cheesy  Wink"

Of course not    Odds still are I won't win.  Although I could have even 10% odds, not that you can really calculate with so many things that could still change.


"This only trade techs that are below you current era essentially limits "trading" to gifts from the powerful to the weak, doesn't it?"


Well, yes, that's basically the point. But how it usually ends up is you have several tiers of civs, some are backwards, some are behind, some keep up the pace.  So what you'd get is a scenario like with Europe and South America in the industrial era and such.  Any of the European countries, even the smaller ones, could help give South America a boost by teaching them how to make rifles(well, in this case, only knights and other medieval techs).  And this would enable the "smaller" European countries an ability to boost and ally with South America, to make the strong European countries have less of an advantage.

But all the backwards South Americans aren't able to band together, so by simply having more nations they research as fast as any of the better off nations..

It sucks when a nation can't gain and keep any tech advantage, like when equal Medieval countries could effectively double their tech rate by pooling their research together.  So there needs to be a middle ground.  This system would go a good deal towards stopping the "South Americans" from inevitably always being backwards, as the course of history put them so far behind and they could not catch up without outside interference.


"This would allow two medieval players to trade medieval techs with each other, but the two renaisannce players ahead of them cannot trade renaisance techs."

But that is a strong possibility also.  Any 2 civs that are far enough behind, could help each other boost up to 2 eras behind the leader.  All those techs are "unlocked" for trading.  But it doesn't create the historical, "Europeans saving the Africans from themselves" situation, which is interesting I think :p although it does create the historical incidents of nations sharing knowledge, without making so any nations which did so would rocket to later eras leaving everyone else behind.

But I don't like the idea of their possibly being 1 player in the modern era, while everyone else is in the renaissance, so basically it becomes a tech trading fest between everyone else.  Although I guess all of them would unite against the modern person, so perhaps that would be better.  What I am wary of, is tech alliances making so players can roll over other smaller players, like making an exclusive club.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

We saw that happen in CC1, and I am sure in other games it is prevalent too;  that is, two or three rapid researchers merging to become hyperpowers.  And given the competitive nature of the game, those hyperpowers are more likely to steamroll over non-aligned nations, rather than show goodwill and help prop them up (only to have that nation bite their ankles later!).

No Tech Brokering does help with some of that (and we had that feature in CC1, too), but ultimately it seems to skew the game balance when a bronze-aged nation is suddenly leap-frogging its neighbors, courtesy of a benevolent overlord on the other continent.

Not sure if we can "trust" the honor system and self-policing to be enough to rectify this--not to mention the potential for misunderstanding the tech trade rule (ignorance is bliss?).

Good to have this discussion though, however ultra-early it may be.

[oyzar]

Most often the "better" players(more skilled or with a better position) put more time into the game hence getting "better" diplomacy and easier get into tech alliances and such. The real problem is in the fact that there is such large differences between different nations. With such huge differences in starting position AND skill the games quickly get unbalanced. It is easy to say that tech trading makes it easier for weaker players to "gang" up against stronger players. However as mentioned stronger players often put down more time/effort and as such often get into better alliances / deals than the weaker players. Tech trading or no tech trading doesn't change this much... People play the game for different reasons. Some play just because it is the only way they can play civ. They got 5-10 minutes to spend on playing each day and hence can't really play any other format. Some play it because they like that they get mroe time to do all actions optimally. Of course there is loads of views in between these ones, but the point is you'll have people at the different ends of these scales(unless you segregate before starting or something) and hence the game will be unbalanced. Some people are playing for competetivness(at least to some degree) while some are not interested in that but way more in the interaction between people... I haven't seen a good solution to this problem yet. Maybe it would be an idea to put different difficulty on different players(Though of course then you run into the problem with honesty again, some people are willing to do a lot of things to win if you let them, which might in turn make the game less fun for others)?

[WarningU2]

I'm playing another diplo game at Apolyton where they use tech vouchers as a trading mechanism ... each civ gets 15 vouchers for the game and can trade for techs or trade vouchers for other items.  We have all pretty well used up the ability to trade or will soon so it will be interesting to see what happens now.   What it does is give all the civs a little head start to trade in the early years ... evens the playing field.   

What I am seeing with this game is that it is soon evident who is the superior player -and who had bad luck or poor skill in comparison when techs and land are concerned.   I think weighing the options a no tech trade rule is more realistic but lessens the game experience for all but the great players. 

[DribNairb]

I like the idea of tech trading being enabled. I think it can add an extra dimension. However, it needs to be kept in check to prevent exactly the problems described.

However I'm not sure the rule suggested by Glaukos will work very well because it could be difficult to know what you can and can't trade at any given moment. I for one don't know which techs belong precisely in which era. Plus, since many people play in different games too it would be easy for them to forget the rule (it's clear that several players haven't strictly adhered to the C&C2 rules - albeit not maliciously - probably due to forgetting they applied in this game!). Unfortunately, I can't think of a better suggestion, and the basic premise that you can only trade 'old' techs seems a good one.

One extra point could be that any tech-trading must be published publically on the forums (any other parts of the deal can be kept hidden). This may discourage a powerful nation simply handing techs to a weaker one who is an enemy of his supposed friend, as well as stopping everyone having to manually look at the scores to figure out who has traded with who! And this would mean anyone can easily check if someone has accidentally traded a wrong tech which would mean any reload is likely to occur quickly rather than after a few turns.

[oyzar]

I like the idea of voucers, sorta like wyftba for humans. Basically forces peopel to not trade for cheap techs and such.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

publicly posting tech trades could certainly assist in enforcing the "honor" system too.

I'm not altogether understanding how the voucher system works, but I'm guessing it would go hand-in-hand with a publicly-posted system.

I think the real goal we all share is to keep the game fun and competitive even for those who fall behind, without things becoming imbalanced.

Also keep in mind that even if tech trading is disabled, there is nothing stopping a benevolent nation from gifting advanced units, resources, or gold to assist a disadvantaged nation. 

The one really nice thing about disabled tech trading, is that the game doesn't progress at a lightning speed;  units don't become obsolete so quickly.  I think it also encourages even more cooperative playing, as it makes sense to work with someone else.

[oyzar]

It certainly encourages less cooperative playing, but that isn't to say that cooperative play is not important. Larger map, no tt, higher difficulty, slower speed all make units come obsolete slower. However most of them also make warfare more crucial. On quick with TT it might sometimes work to basically never go into war as units obsolete so quickly. While at marathon without tech trading on diety you are forced to war in every era to stay competetive.

[Levgre]

"However I'm not sure the rule suggested by Glaukos will work very well because it could be difficult to know what you can and can't trade at any given moment. I for one don't know which techs belong precisely in which era."

I don't either :p But it is very easy to know.  Because the techs are organized in the tech tree by eras.  A certain vertical line of techs would all be the most early medieval techs.  When you research any in the row you advance eras(well not sure if all make you advance... but all belong to that era)

So, classical includes:
Aesthetics, Mathematics, Alphabet, Monarchy, and compass. 

classical continues until the row with:
Music, Philosophy, Civil Service, Theology
which belong to medieval era

Medieval continues until the row with:
Nationalism, Printing Press, Education, Banking
which belong to renaissance

Renaissance continues until the row with:
Steam Power, Sci. Method, Military Science, and Steel
Which belong to industrial

[oyzar]

How easy it is to know it, even though you, yourself got it wrong? I don't think it is apparent to most people. Some people care a lot about everything that going about in the game. If everyone cared just as much, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place!

[Levgre]

Well I did that from memory/guessing, so maybe I didn't get it quite right because I didn't look it up, like someone would, and display the info.

But the point is that anyone who has the ability to look at the tech tree, and has a reference, can easily know where the era splits are.  It's not like they are scattered. 

If they are technically scattered in the game, then we make up the vertical lines as close as possible, so no one has to know what techs belong to each era, just 1 tech(or the line) from each era (which would have a reference thread here on the forums). Easy, a 5th grader could do it.



edit:  I just looked it up and I was close to being right, about 90% of the techs abide by the line rule.  Some of the side paths are a bit off.  But most of them follow the line rule.  So we could just ignore the exceptions so people only have to remember the lines.  Like horseback riding is Ren even though it is with the ancients on the tech tree, but we could just consider it an ancient tech.   

The real "age" that techs are is mostly arbitrary, except for some random events, and your buildings changing appearance.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

Oyzar, with respect, some of us just don't have the penchant for obsession with all things Civ.  I mean, I love the game, but I don't hide the Ancient Era Tactical Field Manual under my mattress.   

Though I *do* have some scandalous paparazzi photos of Hatshepsut, Isabella, and Catherine on a topless beach... 

[Levgre]

The manual for ancient war is in my head, more or less:p  that's what happens in 90% of civ4 multiplayer games, so I've been killed enough times to learn my lessons... yes, I started out being beaten like the red-headed stepchild :p. I'm not a civ4 prodigy or anything.  I've had relatively few modern wars, so I keep that manual under my bed just in case.


Anyways, here is a picture of the true era lines. (this is for vanilla civ4, not BTS... so there'd be a little variance).  Notice how Horsebackriding looks so out of place, around the ancient techs, even though it is classical..



So as you see the lines are a bit crooked, if you want to go by what the people at Firaxis decided were the correct eras :p

Or you could make it like this, just make the lines straight.  What this typically does is make a few techs in each era, belong to an earlier era, for example metal casting and ironworking are ancient instead of classical.  So the tech traders would have a bit more extra leeway.  It wouldn't hurt them.



I have the pictures in bigger form, but this should be good enough to get the idea.

[oyzar]

My point is that is very difficulty for people to learn not to mention very different from the standard game for very little gain...

[Levgre]

I guess I disagree that it is little gain... I think it could add a lot to gameplay, by allowing tech trading but limiting its most destructive qualities. and I disagree that it is hard for people to learn it ;p


The whole thing can be summarized in one picture.  And the rule explanation would only have to do about 2-4 sentences, while the double move rule is much longer. 
Ether it would be announced depending on peoples tech levels "Ancient techs are now tradable, classical are now tradeable"(what Da_Vinci suggested), or people would count 2 eras back from their current most advanced tech(what I originally suggsted).  I think Da_Vinci's suggestion might work better, it would be easier at least.  Although it is sort of a problem, because then someone with one medieval tech can get all the ancient techs from another player. 

It is less powerful if the medieval player can just give "his" ancient techs, otherwise you will have tech alliances where the earlier players backfill the advanced players techs.  Although the medieval player could help civs in the ancient era overcome each other a bit, but that helps the lead player less, than if they could have all ancient techs given to them also.  A player who beelines tends to miss out on a good deal of the optional ancient techs, though.   So beelining to the next era wouldn't make a player "tech powerful", if you don't have many techs in previous eras anyways.


I guess we'd have to have others decide that for themselves, if this, (or perhaps a voucher system, like WarningU2 described), is a worthwhile addition.

[DribNairb]

I think if you have a picture like above with the lines clearly visible then that summarises it neatly. I was imaging having to manually go through the techs trying to figure out if I'm allowed to trade it or not!

However, I assume the situation we are trying to avoid is similar to C&C1 whereby near-enough from the start it was going to be one of Levgree/DribNairb and Viktor/Capsavian who would win because we had technology trading agreements almost straight away (regardless of how fragile those alliances may have been!  ) - leaving anyone else with virtually no chance of catching up. I'm sure this would still happen if the above rule is implemented, but it should have a lesser effect.

Or perhaps it would just lead to even more convoluted deals involving two players (eg. one heads straight for Nationalism, the other Education and then trade everything from the first two eras)?

Perhaps combine the rule with a voucher system: For example, you may only trade one technology from each era with each player. In fact, maybe this would mean you don't need to two-eras-behind rule (sorry, I'm thinking aloud here!). Combine this with publically showing any tech trades so there is a permanent record of who has traded what which prevents accidentally breaking the rule.

[da_Vinci]

Before we discuss all of the approaches, do we have consensus on the objective?

My thought was that the intent was to create a game that is "homeostatic", to use a term from physiology.  By which I mean that it tends to return to balance if one or a few players get too far ahead.  If that is the goal, then tech trading that allows those behind to more easily catch up, but does not help those ahead to extend their lead, is what is sought.

However, I have seen sentiment expressed that some do not want a system that restrains the persons in the lead (or that favors them less than those who are behind).  I can see that point of view too ... why strive for the lead if the rules won't let you keep it?

Now, there are other ways to restrain the leading players, like the current PUAG alliance (Players United Against Glaukos) ... but maybe those are ultimately futile without tech trading?

In any event, discussion of particular rules to consider implementing in the future seem to depend on whether the goal is a more homeostatic game, or not.

dV

[Levgre]

In my mind the objective should be somewhere in between.  The tech leader can get ahead, but as they get farther ahead, the earlier players get more assitance. But the 2 era rule would make so the gap couldn't get be closed that much, and trading isn't efficient for evening the playing field and making everyone technological equals. Rather, it would create a maximum distance between the earlier era players and the new era players (assuming the less advanced civs can get help).

Once they get that boost to 2 eras behind, it is up to their own creativity and initiative to close the gap more.  But it is definitely easier to catch up to a modern player with assembly line, when you can freely trade astronomy, for observatories and oversea trade, or banking, for banks. 

[da_Vinci]

I think we are on the same page ... somewhere in between means some degree of homeostasis, and the question then becomes how far back to true equilibrium do we want a balancing system to take us.

I would agree not all the way back, for then what is the point of getting ahead?  In reality, perhaps we want to allow the tech laggers to stay within "striking distance" (or maybe "surviving distance"), which for practical purposes probably means one "military era" behind at the most, so that an alliance of tech laggers can stand up to the leaders?

So Cavalry against Curaissier is the goal, or is Cavalry against Knights the goal?  (Infantry vs Rifle, or Infantry vs Musket? ... Artillery vs cannon or artillery vs treb? ... rebalance to one or to two military tech advantage?)

Then the next question is how to construct the rule ... is it a restriction on trading certain techs, or a restriction on certain players in advanced eras about trading ANY techs (or ANY techs to players who are also that advanced)?  The latter might be necessary to prevent a beeline and backfill strategy by a pair that gets way out ahead from defeating the purpose of the rule ...

Probably no simple rule can deal with all cases/exploits, and a rule that can will be too complex ...

dV

[Levgre]

"So Cavalry against Curaissier is the goal, or is Cavalry against Knights the goal?  (Infantry vs Rifle, or Infantry vs Musket? ... Artillery vs cannon or artillery vs treb? ... rebalance to one or to two military tech advantage?)"

This is what I think is the best for what people can trade for easily, 2 ages behind.  While the muskets won't do jack against the infantry, they can at least be built, sent to someone else, then upgraded.  Like the renaissance guy and industrial guy would be allied against the modern player, the renaissance has his guys upgraded to rifles at relatively little cost. That had been going on in "the gathering storm", I was building rifles for people with infantry, so they could upgrade them.

And keep in mind, if  you trade for all Renaissance techs, you are not far behind of rifles.  So while you can't trade for them, you'd be able to research for them relatively quick... that is, if you have rebounded and now have a good economy.

[da_Vinci]

You make a good case for two eras ... so is the rule a limit on techs that are tradable, or a limit on the players who can trade, or some combination of both?

Is it "only medieval techs can be traded, since someone is industrial"  or is it "only players not yet in renaissance can trade techs, since someone is industrial"?  Or, some more complex combination?

dV

[Levgre]

You make a good case for two eras ... so is the rule a limit on techs that are tradable, or a limit on the players who can trade, or some combination of both?

Is it "only medieval techs can be traded, since someone is industrial"  or is it "only players not yet in renaissance can trade techs, since someone is industrial"?  Or, some more complex combination?

dV

It would prefer the former, "only medieval techs can be traded, since someone is industrial". I think hand-me-downs make interesting scenarios. 

A week or so ago I conjured up this possible system for tech trading.  It would combine eras and vouchers.
_______________________________________________________________________________________

Each player gets 2 tech trading vouchers for each era that they can use to receive techs.  That means, they can receive 2 ancient techs, 2 renaissance techs, etc.  Players can also trade in 2 vouchers from any earlier era, to be able to receive a tech from a later era.  For example, 2 ancient vouchers can be traded for 2 modern vouchers even.  This makes so people aren't forced to use their vouchers earlier on, although it will not be as effective.  Perhaps this could be altered... like 2 ancient vouchers can only be exchanged for 1 classical voucher, or so on.

 It sounds a bit complicated, but with vouchers it is made simple to keep track of.  At the beginning of the game, everyone starts with:

2 ancient vouchers
2 classical vouchers
2 medieval vouchers
2 renaissance vouchers
2 industrial vouchers
1 modern voucher (I'm thinking it is better when tech trading is harder that late in the game, although earlier vouchers could still be traded up).


Another possible rule would be "hand-me-down trades", a nation can trade a tech 2 eras lower than their current era (industrial trading medieval), and they expend just 'one' voucher of any era, and give a player a tech.  This is different from before, where vouchers are expended when you receive a tech(to stop 1 player from receiving 6+ techs in some strange alliance).  The advanced player uses a voucher simply to benefit another player.  But modern techs will never be given in this manner, since it is 2 eras back. 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Second idea... I think we should implement the policy that any player who wins a game goes up a difficulty level next game.  This is to make "dynasties" harder, of one or several players winning (quite hard, but can make it even harder).  It also makes ganging up on past winners less necessary, not to say people are doing that to me right now :p, they declared war after I had become strong.  But I could imagine several players seeing a past winner in the area as a threat very early in the game, and be tempted to take them out before they grow.  It also makes past winners have cooler titles ;p like I would have been a prince now.  If I happened to win again I become a Monarch.

[Capsavian Hopewell]

It also makes past winners have cooler titles ;p like I would have been a prince now.  If I happened to win again I become a Monarch.

...or Princess! 

I've added "CC1 Winner" to your forum account personal title as an attempt at acknowledging your greatness.

This concept of tech vouchers could work.  Possibly the most simple option available, really. Might be better still to have a designated quota from the start, not divided by era and not rolled over from era to era.  Say, five tech receipts for the duration of the game (as an example).

I also assume this only applies in receiving techs, not giving, right?  So if one civ is benevolently gifting techs, he has, essentially, no limit to his generosity, up until the point he actually receives a tech himself.

[Levgre]

It also makes past winners have cooler titles ;p like I would have been a prince now.  If I happened to win again I become a Monarch.

...or Princess! 

I've added "CC1 Winner" to your forum account personal title as an attempt at acknowledging your greatness.

This concept of tech vouchers could work.  Possibly the most simple option available, really. Might be better still to have a designated quota from the start, not divided by era and not rolled over from era to era.  Say, five tech receipts for the duration of the game (as an example).

I also assume this only applies in receiving techs, not giving, right?  So if one civ is benevolently gifting techs, he has, essentially, no limit to his generosity, up until the point he actually receives a tech himself.

ooo thanks for the title

Yup, a player could give as many techs as people would receive.  The only simple way I can think of to stop this is to make so players have to exchange techs at the same time, and if a person decided to trade and not receive a tech they'd still expend a voucher.  But that seems too restricting. Although you could keep a record of the exchange, then the other player who didn't receive a tech then could receive one later... a delayed trade.  Or someone else may think up a solution.


The only problem with having vouchers which are consistent along eras is that, for some players, they have a good enough start that they simply have no need to trade techs at the beginning.  So their beginning is fine, and then they can trade all 5 techs in later eras and get far ahead.

What we could do, is just have 1 "currency", like you get 30 voucher tokens.  Then ancient techs would have lesser value(2 tokens for ancient, 5 tokens for modern).  The thing is, that does nothing to limit people from having full-fledged tech trading in the first 2-3 eras, during which sometimes the game is completely decided.  So having different era vouchers promotes more equal, and less decisive tech trading throughout the eras.  Of course you could have the 30 voucher tokens distributed periodically, so they can't use them all at once.  Like every 50 turns maybe, all the players get 5 tokens, and then different eras have different costs for the same type of voucher currency.

[oyzar]

The whole point of having era-less voucers is to not have to remember what techs are in what era's. Even i have to look up some techs... Would be easier to have a set amount of beakers you can trade for. Say if everyone can trade for 10K beakers then it doesn't matter if you can do it early or later in the game(though i guess what it would do is make tech trading basically off from a point later in the game and not make it any easier/hader to catch up than otherwise)... I like the idea of era independant voucers with no cap better though, it works basically like wyftba in SP, basically you don't want to trade for all the cheap techs, this would be true in this model too..

[Levgre]

If you dont have a cap per era, (or distribute vouchers periodically), I think the following problem occurs.  People follow for the most part only 2 trading patterns, because they are the most efficient.

Trade early for classical/ancient techs to start faster(esp. when they start slow), because the snowball effect makes it most beneficial... this especially when in a crowded area.  It also makes the tech trades  become a complex calculation in risk/benefit.  "Trade for HBR right now to help in this war?  But then I cant trade for machinery 'and' civil service!"  And then they may make the wrong decision, and the player they are fighting against who tech faster waited for machinery, because he has no obligation to use his era-free vouchers for ancient/classical, gets an even bigger edge.  The more tech-advanced players get more versatility, making TT evenly powerful for them, but I think it should be weighted to assist the players behind in tech.

People without the need to trade early (because of greater tech-tree planning, or because of better early research rate) leverage the tech trades as hard as possible for beelining purposes, like trading civil service, steam power, etc.  Tech trading becomes formulaic, by what specific trades are the most beneficial and important(of course this happens with era restrictions also, but less). There would likely be mostly two types of trades, the best economy ones, and the best military ones, if at war.  Those that 'game' the tech trading system gain more benefit than everyone else, instead of making it less necessary to think about all the ramifications of trading techs early, because certain vouchers 'specifically' are for ancient, classical, etc. only. (or can be used in later eras, at a loss of value)

Dividing the vouchers by eras limits this somewhat... because the ancient and classical vouchers cannot easily be used for expensive, pivotal techs that catapult your civ. 

Perhaps doing it by beakers would work also, although the thing is the cost of techs goes up somewhat, like monarchy is the same cost as 10 steam powers (300 vs. 3200. It is much, much more expensive, making it somewhat silly to wait for steam power)