I couldn't wait for you to ask me, could I?

Richard Bruns: If I have found 96 level 3 techs by myself, how many will they be if everyone inserts his own? Anyway, as I have already said, the tree is under constant revision. I believe that in order to define it's precise form in level 3 is to start mounting the applications.

I'll probably have to make this my last offering for the week, but by 'OOD' I mean defining objects/pieces of the system first, then using those objects to build a system. To design a car you have to know it needs tires, pistons, and a body -- and you have to know what tires, pistons and a body *are*, how they act. Because the objects are the system. Otherwise, it's like assembling that kid's bike the night before Xmas without making sure you have all the pieces.

For example, as I understand it, what has been proposed here has been the requirements-gathering part of the software development life-cycle. Then the first step in OOA will be analyzing and listing the types of objects needed, something like "First, we have 4 types of tech objects, and they will look like this".

Then you map each object in UML style, all inheriting from a base 'tech' object. You give each one instance variables and public methods / behaviors (without fleshing out implementations), defining the interaction of all the objects.

Then you start on the actual object design, designing the actual private methods that will do the work in each object.

Finally, you code.

For a lame, quick example, of what has so far been proposed as base requirements, they will have to begin something like defining a basic tech object (possibly an abstract class) --

Object: Technology

Instance Vars:
String name
float level
Vector techs_affected;

Public Methods:
addTechAffected(Tech t)
getTechsAffected()
addName(String n)
getName()
setLevel(float l)
getLevel()

------------

After this point, you tackle the specific 4 types of 'tech' objects they have proposed:

FieldsOfKnowledge
GeneralTechnology
SpecificTechnology
ApplicationTechnology

You define those, as above (instance vars, public methods). They must inherit from the base Technology class, if you have defined them as Technologies (the rule is "is a" inherits, "has a" gets an instance variable).

And then you define the 'interfaces' for these objects:

Research
TechGain
TechLoss

And on, and on. This is the very *beginning* of the analysis and design process. Because as you begin to flesh out these objects, many difficult decisions arise which will greatly affect the end product. And you will begin to see that the objects define the system themselves.

If you don't let the objects define the system, you will always have to force things, and you will miss functionality you could have otherwise had. Which is not the end of the world, but will cost you power and flexibility. It will cost you options.

P.S -- in Masters of Orion 2, the player selected his next research goal from one of 6 'fields of knowledge'. Each field of knowledge held 3 techs per 'level'. If your civ was 'creative', you got all 3 when you researched that level. If not, you only got one application. So the system had most of the things ya'll have -- fields of knowledge, general techs (the levels) and application techs. Ya'll have added a new intermediate detail level, but that will be transparent to the Player.

In Clash, it appears that the player will do very much the same thing he does in MoO2, unless I miss my guess. Altho the algorithm behind the scenes will be different, and there will be bonuses that cross over. But this will all be transparent to the player. And MoO2 was a fine game, don't get me wrong.

I just so much more enjoy the StarCraft/Age of Empires/Civilization/Alpha Centauri approach behind the scenes, personally. And the industry seems to have migrated to that, away from pure numbers. They are much more fun, in my experience, and in actual practical application have not turned out to be impossible to deal with on a large scale -- especially with 'managers' that allow a player to simply select goals.

Someone just *has* to prototype this, before you lock it in as *the* decision. How can you be sure how it will play if you haven't tried it? Altho, as I said, if it is just like MoO2, as my sample suggested, it will be fine. That was an okay game.

That's why I love this board -- it helps me to iron out and learn to talk about exactly these kinds of issues. This is going to help me in my job, big-time.

I had lunch with one of our System Architects, and I discussed this with him. He felt that your example of the taxonomic classifications was in fact the perfect illustration of OOA.

To whit:
To model all 'animal' life forms, one approach could be to do a large, taxonomic tree (much like the current 'tech' system being proposed). This tree will be huge, and never finished.

Or, you can do OOA --

Object: Creature

Instance Variables:
String name
Vector cells
Object DNA
Date date_of_birth

Public Methods:
birth()
growth()
death()
damage()

Then all you need to do is define the DNA class to handle all the different growths possible, and you have a simple, 2 object model that reflects every possible creature in the universe -- including their lifecycles. This is obviously more powerful than a taxonometric 'tree'.

This is the perfect example of the need for OOA. I thank you very much, this is an invaluable thing, for me.

Taxonomy works very well for biology...then why is it such an headache to do a similarly good job in Paleontology?

Hint
The object of study of Biology and Paleontology is similar (albeit in the second the poor thingies are long gone :-))
Yet paleontology has to deal with a large time scale, which also means evolution, which also means much added complexity.

If you can explain to me (in as simple way as possible) how to simulate strong complexity, with plenty of unknown variables influencing the end product, plenty of interconnections, etc, through OOA, I will be happy. Because honestly I still do not see how OOA can do that efficiently (it feels too limiting for complex systems)

By the way, I also have a professional interest in this particular issue - modelation of complex systems (natural geological systems in particular)

Second thought that just occured to me. Did you think about why you could translate Taxon to OOA - You used DNA information - do you know how much theoretical work, Lab work, discussion underlies the definition of those strings of numbers? DNA reflects pretty complex information and IMO that is why your example works. By the way If you tried to fill in the variables in your objects you would find out that most DNA information of known life forms is totally unknown!

Henrique and F_Smith:
This object oriented programming discussion has made me feel completely stupid, since I am unable to grasp a thing about it.
I suspect that Mr. Smith is implying that we are doing it all wrong, but still...

I am getting pretty angry with myself about this...

Despite not being a programmer, IMO the tech model guys are on the right track, even if latter they come up with programming problems! (IMO there is no use in having easy programming and then ending up with a lousy simulation)

Anyway I have plenty of comments (specially about social/religion and Earth sciences) but I am waiting for the synthesis that Richard must be doing right now...

OOA is specifically for modelling complex systems. It was invented and originally used for AI programming, to model real-world systems.

Here's the simplest example I can think of -- with 4 objects (atom, electron, neutron, proton) you can model every single thing in the world.

Similarly, in botany and paleontology, you can model any animal with 2 objects -- creature and DNA. Yes, the DNA has many complex methods that are not fully known. But that is how they exist in the real world. So I would say, from a 'design' standpoint, that taxonomy does not work well for botanists. It can not predict, only classify, and it requires a huge database. It is a very complex, non-user-friendly system. Of course, as you said, botanists can't exactly just measure the exact state of a life form yet, so it might be the best they have, for the moment. But someday, that taxonometric tree will be replaced by DNA 'fingerprints' of each life form.

Wouldn't you agree that this would simplify identification of a life form -- just sample it's DNA and look up the data?

Axi:

In software development (which is of course what ya'll are engaged in), this stage you are going thru is called 'Requirements Gathering', or 'Requirements Definition'. You need to be identifying the objects needed to write the system into code. Once you have identified the objects, they will write the interactions themselves, so to speak. Ya'll seem to be on to defining interactions and defining instances of the objects (specific techs) without ever having discussed or outlined what the exact objects will be, or what those object's behaviors will be.

This type of OOA is going to be absolutely necessary once coding begins, or else whomever is doing the coding will write spaghetti (and, under many circumstances, be unable to complete the task without some redesign).

The end point is to make a system more simple and at the same time more powerful. This tech system seems to boil down 4 objects, each with behaviors ya'll haven't modelled, which can interact in ways ya'll haven't considered yet. And the designers seem to be rejecting this behavior because it doesn't fit into their tree.

I think I am not being able to transmit what I mean by complexity. Any science that deals with the time variable (any kind of historical sciences, ex: either History or Geology) as a complexity problem that goes way behond the DNA/atom etc approach. Now add to that human interaction and my brain starts to boil!

I really would like to know if this discussion is in any way usefull for the tech folks because they will be doing the hard work and if we continue this on our own we will be monopolizing the forum and no profit will come of this!

Even though I cannot understand what is qualified as an object and what isn't, or what instances and interactions are, you are probably right.

[Mark_Everson_mode-on]
Maybe you could help us with the OOD of the technology system. Clash is in desperate need of coders. What do you say, huh?
Pleeeease..! Pretty pretty pleeeease?
[Mark_Everson_mode-off]

You are in the Clash Team anyway, aren't you? (oddly enough under inactive members; you don't seem very inactive to me though...)

1) I have been approaching this using my Math Modeling experience. I'm not a programmer, but I do have some feel for what systems will work. My experience has told me that the use of variables deetermined by continuous equations is an accurate and mostly foolproof way of modeling complex things.

2) The input from a programmer is very helpful in the model creation process. Your views are helpful, F_Smith.

3) I am still convinced that a system composed of a lot of discrete techs will fail. It works fine for small scales, but at the level of detail we are talking about, a person would have to remember a chain of at least a two dozen technologies for every current application you want to research toward. Trying to navigate through this bramble would be an awful mess. Maybe F_Smith has the brainpower to do this, but no one else does.

4) Creating and debugging a tree like this would be a ghastly experience. We would probably end up with situations where one tech is required for something it is not related to at all. The tree would be almost impossible to learn and deal with. Perhaps one of the reasons that all commercial games have such simplistic and silly tech systems is that they all use this kind of system. It simply does not allow for depth or complexity.

5) I have an odd analogy that may help people think of the system in a new way. This tech system is quite similar to the system that makes RPG characters grow and become more powerful. The way that an RPG character gains levels is analogous to the way the Clash player would gain techs.

Imagine that each character is a Level 2 technology. That character is steadily gaining levels as they gain experience. You get experience every time you fight or use that character. Similarly, you get RP's from your civ that go toward increasing the percentage of Level 2 techs. The level of your characters determines how well they do many things, just like Level 2 techs influence your civ's ability do do things.

Each character has many statistics like Strength or Intellegence. Imagine that these are Level 3 techs. These attributes are influenced by the level of the character. As the character 'levels up' and gains more experience these attributes can increase. But some RPG's also have you raising these stats individually. Casting a spell increases your Intellegence score, using a weapon increases your Strength, etc. Similarly, you increase these secondary tech levels but they also depend on the level of the primary tech.

In RPG's there are many skills and tools you can use. These often require a certain level of some attribute. For example, a certain axe might require a strength of 20 to use or a certain spell might require an intellegence of 30. These weapons and spells are similar to the applications in Clash. The similarity continues; in RPG's the level of your attribute influences how effective the tools are; a spell is more powerful if your Intellegence is greater. Applications in Clash also get more powerful in this fashion.

The levels of RPG characters are governed by equations similar to the equations we have for the many techs. The level of a skill is determined by the character level and the amount the skill is used. It can also be influenced by other factors, like a magic item or spell. The skills make the character more effective and a certain level of the skills allows the character to do new things. This is a lot like the way the tech model works.

RPG players know that this type of system works pretty well and makes for a good gameplay experience. It does a good job of modeling character skill growth and is fun to work with. There are enough variables that the system is complex and fun, but it is not difficult to work with and it is easy to understand. And RPG's can easily involve hundreds of items, spells, and skills.

This kind of system has been proven to be robust and popular. It has none of the flaws of the civ type tech trees and players like it.

It also can't be too difficult to program and implement, because RPG's, and complex ones at that, have been make for many, many years and they can run on things as simple as an old NES.

So we are not trying something new or impossible. We are doing something that is a proven success, even if the context and specifics are different.

Disaster Model Techs:
Seismology
Meteorology
Volcanology (not sure if this is a true science, but I’m certain I’ve heard the term before)
Pesticides
Insecticides
Refrigeration
Waste Disposal (toxic waste and biohazard waste)
Genetic Engineering
Entomology

Disease Model Techs:
Quarantine / mid to late Renaissance
Vaccinations / mid-20th century
Inoculations / mid to late Renaissance
Pesticides
Insecticides
Sewer Systems / Iron Age (Romans had ‘em)
Water Treatment Plants (an application / infrastructure)
Genetic Engineering
Pasteurization / mid-20th century
Refrigeration / mid-20th century
Entomology

Some feedback on your arts side of the tech tree... IMO things like the level two technology Music--- having level 3 of Harmony, Instruments, Song is huge overkill. If you want to include Harmony etc. I would put them as level 4 applications simply because otherwise they, and things like them, fill up 10 or more of the limited level 3 slots. I do not think many players will have affinity with these areas, and that the 10 slots would be much better spent on things in the military or other areas where a lot of players would be more interested. I am with you in that I would like a well rounded tech tree. However, since level 3 is supposed to be tied directly into the interface, we need to be extremely judicious in what goes in there. Too much stuff to have to evaluate at this level will simply overwhelmed the player IMO. I'm actually fairly certain that in playtesting we will end up moving many things out of level 3, and other things in, as it becomes apparent what people are most interested in using. I have copied my suggestion of how to have tech-like applications (level 4) below...

the stuff below the arts in your model looks fine to me. As the models that impact those areas most get developed, obviously we may need to revise things.

TK:

I have the same thing to say as to LGJ. Although I agree that most of the stuff you bring up should be in there in some way, I think you have far too many level 3 things. Here's something I said to Henrique awhile ago on the same topic. Perhaps with good interface design we can get around these issues, but for now I think the more prudent course is to try and keep the level 3 stuff to a minimum...

Needless to say I'm just one voice here, and we may need to discuss this further.

quote: However, I thought we agreed that we are supposed to be keeping the number of level 3 techs to something of order 100 so the player technology planning interface is reasonable. With 4 level 3 techs just in the mining area, we will have approaching 1000! It Just Can't Work for any reasonable interface. Also the player won't care, at least 95% of them anyway. The rule of thumb was something like 10-20 Per Model (Econ, Mil, etc.). I have a Lot of ground to cover in Econ, and we simply can't have more than one generic Mining tech at level 3. The area where we Can have 1000 things is in level 4 applications. That's where IMO all the detail has to go. So I would propose that things like plate tectonics be handled essentially as applications that don't have to be "built". It's level would just feed directly into the prospecting effectiveness of the civ or whatever. I have an issue related to this that I need to bring up.

One question. Do we still have a way to give arbitrary bonuses to applications? For instance in the agricultural area I have an "Improved Crops" Application. The idea is that as your grains and other foodstuffs get better, this will boost your agricultural productivity. One of the killer items in this sort of technology is something like the potato. If you don't have the potato, and discover it someplace else, it can give a huge boost to this application. It's not really a slowly improving thing as many of the other applications are, it is mostly a one-shot thing. The best way it seems to me to handle this is to give Improved Crops a sizable bonus when you discover the potato. It would be a direct bonus to effectiveness, kind of like the "inventor bonus" we were talking about a while ago. What do the technology guys and others think about this? I really think we need some sort of bonus or negative modifier that can be arbitrarily put on applications.

now, on to my proposal for the economics technology tree structure! This is already going to be enormous just covering the basic areas of food, resources, production, and services. If I get that far, I will be happy. Infrastructure will simply have to wait for another day.

I'm Certain I've missed some important stuff here. I also doing this according to my concept of what the most recent agreed approach to level for technologies is. If I'm wrong we can fit what I have into whatever turns out to be the correct model. I have also assumed here that technologies that are not available at the start run on the same scale as the rest of them. So, and the way I think it should be done, there is no Explosives 0%. Explosives would start with the effective use of Gunpowder and might be something like the 20% level. The advantage of doing it this way is that the scales are still the same for all technologies. LGJ and I have been discussing this for some time, and as far as I know we haven't reached an official conclusion... so I am just going to go with my preference here.

Numbers after a technology indicate required percentages and how important it is to the other technology or application. That is the strength of the connection. So for instance a listing of requisites for a level for a technology of Civil Engineering 5% 3 means that the required level is 5%, and the strength is three. For applications I'll also list the longevity. If there is a technology that I want to use as a prerequisite, but that I don't see anywhere, I will precede it with an "?". I have also taken the liberty of using some level 4 applications as requisite technologies for other level 4 applications. The strikes me as a lot simpler in some cases, but we need to discuss if this is the way we want to do it.

Food Area
level 2 Agriculture (Biology, Earth Sciences)
level 3 Farming (Agriculture 9, Mechanical Engineering 1)
Level 4 Irrigation (Farming 5% 5 Civil Engineering 5% 3, Management 5% 3, Mechanical Engineering 3% 2) longevity 5
Level 4 Improved Crops (Farming 0% 3, Breeding/Genetics 0% 5) Longevity 10
Level 4 Plows [Light Soil] (Farming 0% 2, Mechanical Engineering 2% 2, ?Draft Animals 0% 5) longevity 3
Level 4 Heavy Plows [Critical for Heavy Soils] (Plows 10% 4, Metallurgy 10% 10 (for Ironworking)) Longevity 3
Level 4 Early Agricultural Machines (farming 30% 2, Mechanical Engineering 15% 3) longevity 3
Level 4 Farm Machinery (Farming 45% 3, Engines 40% 4) Longevity 3
Level 4 Crop Rotation (Farming 0% 3, Agriculture 0% 5) Longevity 5

Other Level 4 Applications will be Fertilizers & Pesticides, "modern farming" (computerization, better weather forecasting, etc.) and Possibly Specialization (Cash Crops...)
Also need a level 4 technology of Drainage somewhere, maybe under Civil Engineering

So the basic way this is going to work, is when you want to improve your, say agricultural sector, the game will come up with an average cost per unit improvement based on the levels in the above technologies. The average effectiveness of those technologies will go into figuring out the "technology level" of the agriculture sector. I need to think about this carefully so that we don't double count the effectiveness of technology. Perhaps only one or the other of these effects should happen. I'll try to comment on that soon.

Level 3 Fishing (Helper Is Shipbuilding and perhaps something else)
need specific level 4 technologies here...

Level 3 Herding [especially important for nomadic economies] (Domesticated Animals 9, Land Transportation 2 for horses/mobility)
again I don't have ideas for specific level 4 technologies, except to basically duplicate herding...

Resources

Level 3 Mining [I think this should be level 3 not level 2, as Henrique suggests] (Mechanical Engineering 3, Civil Engineering 3, Geology 4)
Level 4 Early Mining Technology (Mining 0% 5, Explosives 20% 5) Longevity 5
Level 4 Modern Mining Technology (Mining 30% 3, Explosives 40% 3,
Level 4 Prospecting (Mining 0% 5, Geology 0% 5) Longevity 10

Level 3 Logging and Forestry (Ecology)
level 4 Logging (Logging and Forestry 0% 3, metallurgy 0% 10) longevity 8 (metallurgy is for the tools)
Level 4 Modern Logging Will Include Using Machinery...

Level 3 Farm Products [Non-Food like Flax, Leather...]
Level 4 Farm-Based Resources (Farm Products 0% 3, Metallurgy 0% 2, Breeding/Genetics 0% 4) Longevity 10

The problem with Engineering is that it is not really one thing. There are many types of engineering that depend on many sciences, and they are not really related to each other.

What exactly is "Farming"? I wanted to avoid Level 3 techs that are a hodgepodge of many things. IMO this tech and Agriculture are redundant. I would recommend splitting this into more specific skills.

Rather than having an Improved Crops application, I would recommend making Crop Plants a Level 3 tech. This would be one of the things that Farming gets split into.

This brings me to the applicatin boost. I wanted to avoid any direct micromanagement of Level 4. For the potato example, we can say that contact with a new continent gives lots of free RP's for the Crop Plants technology. I would like to avoid application manipulation because players might feel the need to direct this.

I would also recommend that Early Agricultural Machines and Farm Machinery be combined to form a Level 3 tech, rather than a string of applications.

I thought we already agreed that Mining would be split into two Level 3 techs: Prospection and Mining Engineering

You seem to believe that every Level 3 tech needs an application under it. I never thought his would be the case. Herding does not need applications, it simply affects the productivity of your nomad provinces.

Although some of what u say might be true, and I am willing to cut down on a few of mine, we still shouldn't bias ourselves toward one area (like military) or another.

FE i really would need the level 3 tech of instruments because there are hundreds of instruments out there. Even cutting it down to the basic ones, theres a couple dozen.

I also believe that the Research model can only be as elaborate as the affected models are. If it goes in more detail than that it actually has to handle, it becomes pointless.

As an example I will use two of my own proposed techs (very importantt in the antiquity): Tannery vs Textiles. They are both factors affecting the productivity of resources produced by Animal breeding (for Tannery) and by Agriculture and Animal breeding (for Textiles). Their products are used in about the same applications, (maybe more Armor applications for Tannery and Seafaring for Textiles). Their helper techs only differ a bit, with Chemistry for Tannery and Engines (weaving machines) for Textiles. The related model is the economic one of course, which divides everything into Food, Resources, Services, Labor and some specials. Unless the specials are brought into action, the above two level 3 techs do the same thing, they affect the productivity of the resources extracted from tiles where food is the main product (grass, plains, hills, you know), while the output of the extraction itself depends on other level 3 techs (Agriculture and Animal breeding). Metallurgy and Woodorking have the same function exactly, only they are meant to affect resources extracted from specials and forest tiles (the extraction being monitored by mining and forestry respectively). But what would that matter in a system where resources are unifyied and processed in a province basis with labor from the urban tiles? What saves Metallurgy and Woodworking is the fact that they have different applications.

• I am not implying that my tech tree proposal has something wrong. (I'm not a looney, not yet anyway. ) I only falsified one of my ideas (for which I always had doubts) because I did not want to piss off anybody. But if some of my 96 level 3 techs (which are generally considered few) are proved redundant, what about the techs in an even bigger list? To phrase it more crudely, equipping our models with a few score level 3 techs that they do not really need is only promoting our egos and encumbering the player.

• I am not implying that we need to retreat to the simplistic approach of the conventional tech systems that gave almost each one of their 90 or so techs (to be exact, 89 for civ2 and 91 for ctp: Activision outbids Microprose for 2 ) a discrete effect. We will posess up to 100 knowledge levels (described in % persentages) and hopefully about 1000 discrete applications suspended on them. That means 100 modifiers and 1000 triggers for effects, all of them available to us in order to enrich our gameplay. We have to find functions (they need not be too special or discete; only to make sense) for almost all of them, in order to justify their existence. Otherwise we will be playing with empty words.

• I am not implying that any of the models needs to be more elaborate, so that the related technologies would have a purpose. This would be "the mountain coming to the prophet". Considerations about elaboration or simplification of models will actually occur, but they have to be judged on their own accord. IMO we should try to achieve a roughly equal level of complexity for all the models.
  

Thank you for listening to my ramblings. Excuse me if I am sometimes veering off-topic or if I am repeating myself.

Engineering...
uses a lot of diverse things, but there are also many approaches, and a "mindset" that all the engineering fields Do have in common. Anyway, my recommendation is to use engineering as a basic "technology". Doing it this way just feels better to me than the way you have it. That said, do it whichever way you want, and I'll work with it.

Agriculture/Farming...
you are right, these are redundant. The reason I put them in that way is my personal picture that all the things that have real quantifiable "area" effects for the player should show up on level 3. Perhaps we should just lose Agriculture as a level 2 Tech. The problem with splitting it into more specific skills, is that if we have five things for agriculture on level 3,then I would need 50 to do the whole economic model, which is way too many. That's also why I made Improved Crops an application, because otherwise we will quickly overload the space in level 3 IMO. You guys are in charge, but I am with Axi, if there is too much stuff the player needs to deal with than the game will become a nightmare. Anyway, one of the reasons I took this on is so I could use the economic area as a guinea pig for how the technology model structure actually works.

Every level 3 needs an application...
you are right , I somehow got into that bad habit! You are right that Herding and other level 3 things do not need further elaboration in level 4.

The main message I get from your post, is that you picture an awful lot of things being in level 3. Obviously we have a different perspective on the game function of level 3, or at least the gameplay consequences of having 200 + things in level 3. I think something like 100 is the Absolute Maximum of things that we can have the player be expected to deal with. It's probably already too many... I'm just trying to picture an interface that allows you to deal with more than 100 discrete things, and having real trouble seeing how it can work without having multiple layers of stuff for the player to burrow through. A number like 100,already requires at least a too-level menu system, with the first level containing to attend major areas, and the second level allowing these ten major areas to split down the into 10 subdivisions. I think we need to reserve level 3, or Some subset of the model, to allow the player reasonably fine control over the general areas that are important. And like Axi said, these should be things that have a substantial effect on the models, or they are pointless clutter.

So, for instance, the reason I just want a single Farming technology at level 3 is so that when the player wants more food from the land they can just dump money and resources into it. The player shouldn't need to worry as to whether what is needed is better irrigation techniques, improved crop species, or better farm implements. Right now we already have three level 3 things pertaining to food production: Farming, Fishing, and Herding. I think that is his much detail as we can spare out of a potential maximum of 100 technologies. I would be significantly happier if we could get it down to 50!

Mark: I posted above that 100 is a reasonable goal to shoot for, however we shouldn't be constrained by a maximum number if we need more, nor should we reach that number if we don't.

Mark:

The Construction basic tech could be expanded to Construction and Engineering. Would that work?

You assume that the interface will simply be a list of all the Level 3 techs. I agree that if we choose to do this, then the interface will be a mess. But I thought that the techs would be organized like the folders on a hard drive, with Level 1 and 2 techs serving as the big folders that organize things.

The first layer of the interface is a list of the Level 1 techs. If you choose to do so, you can allocate RP to that overall tech and it will be split among all of the sub-techs. Or, you can choose to be more specific. You can expand the tech 'folder' and look at its contents, which are Level 2 techs. Here you have the same option. You can allocate RP to an entire Level 2 tech, which means that all Level 3 techs under that tech are supported. So if you simply wanted to make farms better, you put a lot into the Level 2 tech of Agriculture. If you wanted to be more specific, you can expend this tech 'folder', look at the Level 3 techs, and deal with them individually.

Note that when you allocate RP to a broad group you are not improving the Level 1 and 2 techs. You are telling the RP's to be split among all of the Level 3 techs that the the Level 1 and 2 techs are vital techs for. Whenever you get the option to support the Level 1 and 2 techs, the research is split among those as well.

There are some Level 2 techs that are not under a specific Level 1 tech. If supported by multiple Level 1 techs, they are placed in each 'folder.' If they are not supported by any Level 1 tech, they would be placed with the Level 1 techs, in the first organization window.

This isn't a definite proposal; it is just an idea to show how the techs could be organized to ease the player interface. An alternate organization scheme would be to organize them based on the things they are useful for, like Food or Production or Happiness.

Anyway, as I see it the player will easily be able to play an entire game without messing with the tech tree more than a couple times. Most RP's are assigned automatically; the player will not be making tech decisions every few turns.

The list of applications (lv 4) can be developed over more time. The full application list will have numerous applications and will take quite a while to beat into shape. Also most customisation of the system by users, would involve the application level.

I am looking forward to both parts of the model.

I know 100 is an arbitrary goal. But my point is if we don't keep a lid on things and it gets to 250, I don't think it will be any fun. What I'm trying to do is stop things from blowing up to a ridiculous level before we invest a lot of time in figuring out which level 4 applications hookup to which other technologies.

On the "Improved Crops" it's not arbitrary, but there is a continual advancement in food crops, and to not have it in there simply because we don't want to name every single strain doesn't seem to be the right approach to me.

Richard:

Well, construction and engineering is better than nothing... and a decent compromise.

Personally, I strongly feel that the interface needs to be done at the function level. Nobody will want to drill down through chemistry to get to firearms. That will very quickly drive people crazy IMO. Your folder should be "military", "economics" etc. IMO.

quote: Note that when you allocate RP to a broad group you are not improving the Level 1 and 2 techs. You are telling the RP's to be split among all of the Level 3 techs that the the Level 1 and 2 techs are vital techs for. Whenever you get the option to support the Level 1 and 2 techs, the research is split among those as well.

quote: Anyway, as I see it the player will easily be able to play an entire game without messing with the tech tree more than a couple times. Most RP's are assigned automatically; the player will not be making tech decisions every few turns.

Well I think a player Could play a game without messing with the tech tree more than a few times, but most will want more than that. Being in control of the technological progression of one's civilization is one of the big attractions of a civ-type game! At least for me. And if someone who is interested in technology can't do much of anything, we are going to lose Huge Numbers of players. This is one place where I think we really need to break with realism. Unless the player selects, through a realism slider, that they want to be prevented from doing unhistorical things with the technology, I think we Need to let them. I am firmly convinced that the interface needs to be able to support tweaking on a "once every ten turns" basis or so without it being a huge pain. For instance every time a war comes along I can see generally pacifistic governments really sinking money into military research in the modern world. Those transitions will happen fairly frequently.

Also esp in modern times most civ governments didn't develope much in the way of technology, except for perhaps military purposes, but only then if they were at war/thought they might be at war. If not they didn't. And a pacificst type people wouldn't sink money into military, although it will increase. Even so most would be in defenive technology, not offensive (FE walls). I really think that allowing the player to have a lot of control in this time period is wrong. I'm not saying none, just not too much. (IE the free RPs which can be placed anywhere will be much more scarce than modern times). If they player wants to invest more in another area he'd have to find other ways to subtly change this. Remember even in this time period, even the God-Kings didn't have as much influence as some of the governemnts of today, such as communism, which pretty much controls every aspect of everyones life. No one could do that back then and without that power one cannot control exactly how techs advance.

BTW mark if we use a system like what Rich says for the tech levels, so long as we don't have 1000 level 3 techs the number shouldn't be a problem, reguardless of how they are organised. I also like his method with a few changes:

Lvl 2 techs w/o prereq could be listed under a Misc category and one couldn't assign RP to that lvl 1 category, but only its lvl 2 sections and beyond.