TECHNOLOGY(v2.1)- hosted by SnowFire

[SnowFire]

Like how does 'Industrialization' allow you to build Women's Suffrage

That one at least was fairly logical. Industrialization created many changes in its wake, among them the employment of large amounts of women, which you could argue directly lead to the first primitive women's rights movements.

See idea 3.3 in reference to your second idea.

A Colonization advance? Interesting... I'll stick it in, but personally (as a contributor, not a TM) I think that would be more a Social Engineering choice. What would be a cool idea for the Radical thread would be distinct "phases" of the game- i.e., have a continent inhabited only by primitives that's only reachable once the Age of Exploration starts, and then the AI shifts to a colonizing AI as the Indians and natives get slaightered and taken over by the more advanced conquistadores.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited July 27, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

Cultural tech advances:

In the Social Engineering thread M@ni@c suggested that there be SE categories along the lines of Nationalism, Culture, and such. I forget the exact benefits/penalties of high/low Culture ratings (if I remember correctly a high Culture rating causes other Civ's cities to eventually defect and their populations to defect to you).

An idea: Culture will not only be determined by SE choices, but it will also be determined by what Cultural tech advances your Civ has made. Most Cultural tech advances will be optional (you don't really need Painting in order to build rifles and tanks), but the more "research" you dedicate towards Culture and the Arts the more emigration you'll have, the more cities will defect, the happier your people will be, and the more loath other nations will be to attack you.

Note the quotes around Cultural "research." This idea deviates slightly from the norm, but perhaps Cultural tech advances could be attained some way other than through "scientific research." Maybe Cultural tech advances could be reached through gathering "culture" or "philosophy" points instead of "research" points. This is probably highly unnecessary, but my fear is that if tech inertia and synergy are employed (which I am in favor of) then it will be extremely difficult for Cultural advances to be made. Perhaps an easier way to avoid Cultural stagnation of this sort would be to have less effeciency be lost through research goal changes so long as the changes are being made towards Culture? (or, better yet, the amount of effeciency lost would be determined by the Culture level in the SE settings.)

For more on this, see the Social Engineering thread on Culture, posted by M@ni@c

[loinburger]

By the way, I noted that there was nothing in the summary about the Soldier Specialists idea I brought over here from the Movement and Supply thread (It was Korn's idea originally so he's got a more fleshed out plan for them). Was this unanimously called a bad idea or did it get passed by (there were no responses to it, so the latter was entirely possible)? Should I repost the idea or let it die?
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by technophile (edited July 27, 1999).]</font>

[SnowFire]

It's in there, just not explicitly so. I'll add your specific variation next revision. I figured it was roughly the same thing as the "Famous Scientists" variation...

[korn469]

a soldier specialist is not the same thing as a famous scientist unit. instead of sheilds units are supported by soldier specialist.

a soldier specialist is like any other specialist (doctor technician empath ect) it provides bonuses

+1 pysch -2 econ +2 labs[when researching a combat tech] -2 labs[when researching a peace tech]

i can explain it in more dpth if you like.

korn469

[loinburger]

(sorry Korn, I forget names)
...the other part of the Soldier Specialists being that such an idea could be expanded to having Scientist specialists specifically tooled to working in one area. Instead of having run-of-the-mill Scientists you could have Philosophers, Biologists, Chemists, Physicists, Gurus/Rabbies/High Priests, etc., and switching them back and forth would sacrifice efficiency. But as I've said previously, such a system might be a pain in the buttocks to implement and would probably require too much micromanaging, and it also looks like such a system would be redundant (if there are Buildings specifically tooled to research one path).

However, the Soldier Specialist is something apart from the Super-Micromanagement Specialist Scientists, and should likewise be considered separately (I personally love the idea that if you're at war and you're research a peace tech that you get a research penalty).

One suggestion regarding Research Inertia: Perhaps different tech paths could be considered to be "in opposition to", "slightly related to", or "related to" another tech path. An example would be that Pure Science would be "in opposition to" Agriculture, but would be "related to" Industry (computer chips). This would mean that there would be less inefficiency in shifting from Pure Science to Industry than in shifting from Pure Science to Agriculture. (I don't care if my example is incorrect, it's just an example).

A general comment on Future Techs: I don't know if the game is supposed to end where SMAC begins and that there should thus be no tech overlap (personally I hope that the game extends on several hundred years into the 21st century), but if that is the plan than I don't see why tech overlap should be overruled. Consider this: it takes the Unity several decades to reach Alpha Centauri. In that time period, no new scientific breakthroughs made on Earth are sent to the Unity. Furthermore, the Earth nations are pumping out tech advances just as fast as they come, while on Alpha Centauri the poor Unity survivors have to get situated before they make their future tech advances. THEREFORE, we should be able to have some tech overlap, because the Earth scientists will be able to make dozens of discoveries after the Unity is launched but before the world blows up.

Great work, keep it up.

[Theben]

I prefer getting rid of all "specialists".

[loinburger]

Theben: Explain. What do you propose to replace specialists?

[loinburger]

Regarding idea 2.13: Further research in a tech advance:
I approve of this idea, but something that concerns me is that nobody will take advantage of doing further research until they have the highest military techs, ex. why should I do further research into longbows insteade of just trying to get howitzers and tanks first and then doing further research into those two military units? I for one can see myself never doing further research until I've maxed out in techs, and then starting to max out in my maxed out techs.

Two solutions as I see them: first off, have there be so many future techs, and have them be so difficult to research, that NOBODY but the most die-hard researching Civ will be able to max out on the tech tree. This will force Civs to do further research--their shoddy tanks are going to get crushed by the enemy's advanced tanks before they'll be able to research the next military unit.

The second solution is that prototypes occasionally fail, i.e. muskets will be effectively useless until further research is done into them. The first firearms would jam and/or blow up all the time, often killing the people using them. In fact, the first time firearms were used in combat (I'm not sure of this, correct me if I'm wrong, Diodorus), they had pikemen to back them up, because they were sitting ducks out on their own. A civ will still be able to avoid doing further research into muskets because the further research will still get done, albeit much more slowly, as that civ researches its new tech advance. But in the meantime, not only are the enemy's upgraded archers going to be much more powerful than your musketeers, but your own non-upgraded archers will also be more powerful.

I for one favor the second option, of having new military units be pathetic. Any arguments/suggestions?

[Theben]

I never really liked specialists. You pull 10,000 people out of the fields and all of a sudden they're scientists with PhD's? Or skilled entertainers? Now you want "soldiers"? How about they all stay "citizens"? Tweak the game so there are other means of pacifying-taxing-getting better research from your people.

[SnowFire]

Summary updated.

As a poster, I agree with you Theben. Plus, this idea would make technology very slow in the beginning of the game- expand fast with lots of food, or research? Truly a devil's choice.

Are there are other ways of supporting units other than the Soldier Specialist? Unless you're dramaticaly revamping CivIII's population scale (like 60 people to an average city), that's a big chunk of population. And even in peacetime, roughly one or two armies per city is not uncommon. You'd be a total slave to military techs.

Now, if in addition to the standard number of armies supported per city, soldier specialists allowed you to support 3 more armies and have other benefits, you might have a good idea.

[Gordon the Whale]

technophile: Did you say several hundred years into the 21st century? I hate to break it to you, but, like most centuries, the 21st is exactly one hundred years long. Do you mean the 3rd millenium?

[Maniac]

Technopile,

I am (very) glad you distribute around my SE ideas (eg about Culture), cause I don't think many people are reading the SE thread.
But if you have new effects for certain SE factors like Culture, I certainly will not stop you to post them too in the SE thread.
You must understand that I don't have the time to read all threads (all my energy is absorbed by discussing with the people over there - Jon Miller is really giving my model a hard time).

So if you have new ideas about SE and you want to make sure I read them, also post them at SE.

[Jimmy]

Divide some techs into "theoretical" and "application". "theoretical" would always have less research points than "application" (It is easier to develop a theory than an actual working prototype).
You would have to research the "theoretical" before the "application". You would only be considered to have a discovered a tech in the civ2 sense when you complete the "application". Some civ2 techs would only have "theoretical" such as Monotheism or Philosophy. A tech like Advanced flight would have both "theoretical" and "application". When you finish the "theoretical" part, you would have an appropriate message like "Our scientists have discovered that it is possible for Man to fly, they will begin work on a first prototype of a flying machine." After completing the "application" part, you would get the message like "Our scientists have completed the first flying machine, they call it the airplane."

By separating techs into two parts, this would:
1)accurately represent the historical aspect of theoretical and application part of technologies (even today some have a theory for FTL drive but actually acheiving it is more difficult).
2) in diplomacy, only to trade the "theoretical" part, the other civ would still have to complete the rest of the research himself/herself.
3) spies would only steal the "theoretical" part, you would still have to research the rest yourself. This would facilitate your research but not make spying so powerful that you can just still everything. I agree with those that say that spies are too powerful because why do any research at all if you can just steal it. This would counter this unfair strategy and make research necessary.

[Jimmy]

My idea could easily be implemented by dividing the tech into to separate techs one to represent the "theoretical" the other tech to represent the "application. They would distinguishable because one would always be called "Theory of ..." and the other would be called just the name of the discovery. Ex: the civ2 tech "Rocketry" would become two separate techs, one "Theory of Rocketry" which would be a prerequesite to "Rocketry" which would actually give you the cruise missile, the nuke, SAM site etc...