Technology level

[Nath]

What is the highest level of technology likely to be included?

I don't think it should end as a sci-fi game with robots and things; it should stay in history and if necessary include some present-day technology.

The problem with modern technology is that it varies too much to be predicted.
For example, it was no surprise if 3000 years ago two civs developed a similar sword. It's unlikely today that two countries will 'invent' the F-15 Eagle. Different countries' frontline fighters have very different performances. If modern-day technology is implemented, what will be a possible technology -- F-15s or fighters in general?

Also, nowadays more technology is sold than created independently.

[ElmoTheElk]

We havený settled the max. tech level yet and I think we shouldn't do that etheir. More imprtantly may be where we start...

We once were discussing if we include the hunters/gatherers into ggs, but I think we dicided not to since they are a very differnt way of managing your civ. ggs will be about raising and growing up your civ, so we start at the point where you first settle a 'city'. Start farming and build housings.
The tech level will be equally high (or low... ). It's about the same as in civ1-2-3.

But of course you want some sort of answer. I think we end with the latest tech we have. So all kwown tech in the real world can be included. I agree though that tech from the 70's untill now is very overrated, so we should include only very important new techs, like computers. (Even with the fact in mind that we will probably far more advances that civ2 has.)

It will, in any way, not include SMAC-level tech. The fact that tech is invented a different way than in history, doesn;t really influence the fact THAT more techs are discovered, do they?

Elmo

[Leland]

I haven't thought about the tech model much, but the impression I had is that we probably will distinguish between theoretical knowledge and practical applications. If that is the case, I think that the theoretical stuff should be strictly restricted to 20th century knowledge. The applications, however, can possibly go beyond that and our current situation. For example, fusion has been proven to work in laboratories, just not efficiently enough to be economically viable... but we can postulate that fusion plants are possible. Same goes for fuel-cell cars, cloning, virtual reality and space technology. But I don't think there should be any magical technologies like nanotech, human-level AI or quantum computers. Just reasonable extrapolation of what we have now. On another hand, developing one of these indistinguishable-from-magic breakthroughs might be a good end criteria for the game, like the ship to alpha centauru was in civs.

Anyway, I agree with Elmo that the beginning is more important because that is the way the game will actually be developed: starting from the beginning and moving towards the present time. Whenever someone has the inspiration to draft a technology model, he should of course take into account that the model shouldn't "break down" until the late 20th century or early 21st century.

[Maniac]

We once were discussing if we include the hunters/gatherers into ggs, but I think we dicided not to since they are a very differnt way of managing your civ. ggs will be about raising and growing up your civ, so we start at the point where you first settle a 'city'. Start farming and build housings.
The tech level will be equally high (or low... ). It's about the same as in civ1-2-3.

Yeah, but while you start the game with building your first city, many other parts will still be hunting/gathering. Only by the slow process of 'tech leakage' did the whole world become sedentationized and agriculturized. So if you want a realistic start, there needs to be a 'model' for hunting/gathering. I think this can be represented very simple. When you have some people of your civ/tribe working an area without any technological or infrastructural help, they are hunting/gathering and that gives a certain amount of food per turn. Then, with a certain tech or so, they get the ability to build farms in an area. When a person is gathering food while there is an unused farm infrastructure present in the area, the food output of that person is multiplied.

[The Joker]

Hunter/gathering:

Yes, it can be included very easily. Of cause the players should all be farmers, and the hunter/gatherers would not even need an AI, since they wouldn't really do anything except hunting and gathering.

I think that in all tiles/areas ( ) that are not occupied by a real civ there should be people just living there. They wouldn't do anything - they would just be a number, and the amount would only be decided by the terrain capacity (a forest can carry more people than a desert). They would just be relevant when the players wanted to expand. Then they would either have to fight these people (displayed by a unit entering such a "hostile" area/tile with the intention to take control of it would take a small hit - this will also make sure that players could not expand heavily very early in the game - they would need the suficient technology and production base to supress these people easily. Alternatively when the player had a large important city just next to such hunter/gatherers they could be so amazed by the wonders of their neighbor that they would join the players civ (propably by adopting the player's nationality, and then the player could take control of the area/tile without problems).


Future techs:

I think Leland presented the best idea here. Having theoretical knowledge restricted to the present level, and then allowing practical implications beyond what we can do at present would be ideal. So we can have some near-future techs that are theoretically although not economically possible today in the game.

And ending the game with some great project like the journey to AC would be a good idea as well.

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by The Joker
Hunter/gathering:

Yes, it can be included very easily. Of cause the players should all be farmers, and the hunter/gatherers would not even need an AI, since they wouldn't really do anything except hunting and gathering.

I think that in all tiles/areas ( ) that are not occupied by a real civ there should be people just living there. They wouldn't do anything - they would just be a number, and the amount would only be decided by the terrain capacity (a forest can carry more people than a desert). They would just be relevant when the players wanted to expand. Then they would either have to fight these people (displayed by a unit entering such a "hostile" area/tile with the intention to take control of it would take a small hit - this will also make sure that players could not expand heavily very early in the game - they would need the suficient technology and production base to supress these people easily. Alternatively when the player had a large important city just next to such hunter/gatherers they could be so amazed by the wonders of their neighbor that they would join the players civ (propably by adopting the player's nationality, and then the player could take control of the area/tile without problems).

On this issue I do not agree with the Joker.

First of all within one state, tribe or civilisation, some people will be farmers, while others are/can be hunter-gatherers and/or pastoralists. This is true even today!
My guess is that in present-day China all different economic strategies are practised: hunting and gathering, pastoralism, hoe cultivation, plough cultivation and industrial societies, though the last two are clearly dominant. Yet I do not expect to find a lot of agriculture or industry in Tibet or Sinkiang!
And in Europe or Japan fish is still an important part of our daily menu.

And since I think that many players would like to play as nomad conquerors -like the Huns of Mongols- I do not think one should force players to be sedentary farmers from the beginning of days.

The game will improve greatly when it will include all the five main stages of economic development:

• hunting and gathering
• pastoralism
• hoe cultivation
• plough cultivation
• industrial societies

I hope no one objects when I copy some remarks I have posted on these issue before:

• Realistically the modern population explosion should start rather late and accelerate more and more, heading for catastrophe
  
• I most strongly recommend 8000BC as the ideal starting date of a Civ game, the beginning of Agriculture and Animal Domestication
  
• With Jericho in ~7000BC city life began; there is clear evidence of long-distance trade
  
• The inhabitants of early towns felt threatened by organised raiding and warfare, in all probability mainly by nomadic hunter-gatherers; so urbanisation is often rather a sign of weakness than of strength
  
• Agriculture and Animal Domestication gradually spread as a result of settlement and tech spread, especially in fertile areas
  
• Farmers too can have a nomadic lifestyle, especially when they practise slash-and-burn
  
• about 70% of the earth's dry land is essentially hostile to agriculture and civilisation
  
• Agricultural societies can support many more people, yet their peasant populations are less suitable for aggresive campaining and imperialistic policies; and sedentary populations are more vulnerable: invaders can destroy the harvest
  
• Most pre-industrial civilisations engaged in elaborate defense and fortification structures, in the end to no avail
  
• People from 'food-deficit areas', both hunter-gatherers and pastoralists, will regularly raid and sometimes conquer civilised empires, though they are usually greatly outnumbered
  
• Conquering an empire and preserving it are two different things, which require different skills
  
• Most prominent among cities are capitals of large empires, where most wealth is spent and concentrated. Quite often it is the only true city of the realm. In comparison regional capitals generally are rather modest
  
• Some fertile regions (e.g.Egypt, Mesopotamia, southern Spain) will contain always at least one large city
  
• Before 1750AD northern America didn't contain one substantial city, yet through migration, tech spread and some luck it is possible to become the most advanced political and economic power in less than three centuries
  
• It is possible to control a vast region without important urban centres; by all odds the level of control will be limited though
  
• Political stability is vital for the growth of large cities
  
• Sometimes cities will disappear completely
  
• As a rule hunter-gatherers will only gradually change their economic strategy. Many of them develop mixed strategies: fishing/gathering and hoe cultivation, pastoralism and hunting etc.
  
• While colonisation of an uninhabited continent (like Iceland)is an easy task, colonising an inhabited continent or area will often prove to be impossible, even when you possess superior technology and the region is thinly populated
  
• Against determined resistance the submission of primitive people, well-adapted to their environment, is a hard task, even for a gunpowder state
  
• Perhaps is is easier to conquer an empire (like the Aztec) than to add a formerly unorganised territory to your kingdom
  
• When confronted with a hostile force, primitive people can either fight, hide or migrate. Yet as soon as the danger disappears, they will come back
  
• Full pastoralism was a relatively late development, i.e. from ~1500BC
  
• During more than two millennia pastoralists had a decisive military advantage over agricultural societies, mainly due to the development of Horseback Riding and the selective breeding of horses strong enough to support the weight of a mounted archer
  
• For pastoral societies, wealth is a burden: the more primitive their economy, the more formidable they'll become militarily
  
• After several millennia during which agriculture expanded its territory, during the steppe nomad age pastoralism extended at its expense
  
• It was the discovery of Gunpowder that finally ended the military dominance of the steppe nomads
  
• While China, in 1000AD by far the most advanced society, was conquered twice by 'barbarians' during the last millennium, Western Europe was not. J.Diamond doesn't convince me with his analysis. For the Chinese's confidence it was a disaster

I think, this will do for the moment. I hope to have explained why I highly favour the addition of hunter-gatherers in Civilisation-like games. They would add both realism and would provide a Challenge!

AND: hunter-gathers are not necessarily unorganised, nor will they inevitably remain unorganised and hunting/gathering for ever! And even unorganised bands of hunter-gatherers could be a nuisance! One thing they can do is to migrate, which often will cause trouble.

I do not support the idea that every region should necessarily contain at least one city. This is irrealistic and actually rules out empires of nomads, like the Huns or Mongols, unless you would make their regions excessively large or would consider a village of 3,000 inhabitants technically still a city. It is also my opinion that a world with more variety will be much more interesting, having both highly urbanized regions like ancient Sumer, Renaissance Italy or seventeenth century Holland and thinly populated areas like Australia, the Sahara, Turkestan and North America before 1850.

Some arguments for my opinions can be found in this thread.

I also hope that GGS will show the four Types of Societies as outlined by J.Diamond on page 268 of The Book:

• Band
• Tribe
• Chiefdom
• State

In my view in the beginning of the game, the 'Civilisations'/players all begin this game as Tribes, occupying only one hex, while the rest of the world is partly uninhabited and -for the largest part- occupied by unorganised bands. I hope this bands will be more than just 'lame ducks', presenting both a threat and an obstacle to expansion!

Some time ago I made a list of all data which -at least in my opinion- should be kept up at hex level in some way/somewhere, directly or indirectly:

• terrain type
• to which macroregion it belongs to: here could be stored information about climate of the region and its domesticable plants and/or animals
• population size
• the dominant nationality/ethnicity
• the dominant religion
• the prevailing production mode
  I would suggest ten different strategies: 1. hunting/gathering 2. pastoralism 3. hoe cultivation 4. plough cultivation and six 'mixed economies', i.e. combinations of 1 and 2, 1 and 3, etc; this would make transitions between them possible
• whether the population is sedentary or nomadic (of course pastoralists are always nomadic while plough cultivators are always sedentary)
• whether the population consists of unorganized 'bands' or one organized 'tribe'
• an indication of the degree of bellicosity of the natives: this could be simple: peaceful/warlike or in degree
• perhaps some indication of the tech level of those natives
• improvements like irrigation, roads, mines, fortresses, cities etc;

Perhaps this list belongs in another thread. I post it here because many of its elements -for instance tech level of natives, plants and animals, the importance of unorganised bands and organised tribes- can be explained by my ideas about the elements dominating the beginning of History.

[ElmoTheElk]

I think youi posted an exellent list of tile/area properties that should be stored. I can't think of anything more (but I am sure Joker can ).

But the best part anout this post is how the type of people is stored. 1 of the 4 'production modes' (or a mix of those) is all we need.
We just need good algoriths to make functions like how easy it is to expand, if the people are loyal to which civ, etc. Some code lines is all we need here.

Elmo

[Leland]

I must have overlooked this thread for some reason... interesting stuff, but I do have some questions and comments.

Originally posted by S. Kroeze
And since I think that many players would like to play as nomad conquerors -like the Huns of Mongols- I do not think one should force players to be sedentary farmers from the beginning of days.

Agreed! That would be a very unique feature as well as governmental option. Perhaps all players could start as nomadic civs, and those who wish to do so could settle down. I think nomadic nations could also be usable in modelling guerilla warfare... it's possible that all your big cities have been captured, but you can still keep fighting.

(Quotes are in blue)

• Realistically the modern population explosion should start rather late and accelerate more and more, heading for catastrophe

Yes, that would seem likely. But, like VetLegion once pointed out the game will not play out exactly like real history because the players have the advantage of hindsight. So I wouldn't count out the possibility of great leadership resulting in more efficient agriculture than in real life and hence earlier population explosion. Also, isn't there some sort of noticeable gap between the population densities of agricultural societies and hunter/gatherer/pastoral societies?

• I most strongly recommend 8000BC as the ideal starting date of a Civ game, the beginning of Agriculture and Animal Domestication
  
• With Jericho in ~7000BC city life began; there is clear evidence of long-distance trade

I wouldn't set the beginning any earlier than first cities. I think that the players should have an option of settling down immediately after the game starts. Also, the farther back you go the slower the progress: I don't think an average player would like to wait half a game struggling with pretty much the same technology level before the action begins. So, I think the beginning should be somewhere between 6000BC and 4000BC.

• Agriculture and Animal Domestication gradually spread as a result of settlement and tech spread, especially in fertile areas

This is an important point. Technology doesn't spread like it does in Civ, where each nations "owns" technologies. In reality, people adapt to new innovations much regardless of governments, though of course the government could facilitate the process (by supporting trade, for instance). Hence, technology level should be a property of a population, not the whole civilization.

• about 70% of the earth's dry land is essentially hostile to agriculture and civilisation

Here's where I think we should give up on realism in favour of gameplay. I think it shouldn't be necessary that the GGS Earth is as unsuitable for civilization as is our Earth, after all it is meant to be fun. In particular, the destiny of a nation shouldn't be sealed if the player is unlucky enough to start in one of these hostile areas. I can think of two ways to circumvent this problem: 1) The randomizer that positions the players on the map could ignore areas that are not suitable, or 2) The players have more power to "force" their peoples into agriculture and advanced civilization than the ancient tribes of our timeline. The latter option is basically a reduction in realism.

This reminds me of domesticable animals and the importance J. Diamond attributed to them: upon reading GGS the book, I had the impression that if you were unfortunate and didn't have domesticable species around your area, the chances of world domination were lost. I don't think that would be a nice feature for a game because it reduces greatly the diversity of resonable starting points. I think domesticable species should miraculously always be available to all civilizations (or at least those who first decide to research domestication... kind of like a wonder of the world).

• Conquering an empire and preserving it are two different things, which require different skills

Exactly.

• Before 1750AD northern America didn't contain one substantial city, yet through migration, tech spread and some luck it is possible to become the most advanced political and economic power in less than three centuries

But, the native North-American indians are not the ones who accomplished it. It seems that with the cards they were dealt, the natives of many regions of the world are simply destined to struggle as small tribes until conquerors from more fortunate areas come and start beating the hell out of them. This is one thing which might be realistic, but I wouldn't like to see in the game. I think it should be possible for, say, the Austrilian aborigins to develop an advanced high-tech society without depending on foreign invasion. Of course a scenario such as this shouldn't be too easy.

• Sometimes cities will disappear completely

Correct. I think it's important to design the game so that regions are not as tightly attached to cities as in other civ type of games. My gut feeling is that there should be a bunch of "city candidates" - smaller villages, military installations, densely populated areas - which become cities once they get over a certain threshold. Similarly, cities could fall below the threshold and be dismantled. Also, not every city needs to be a region capital, especially in modern times.

• As a rule hunter-gatherers will only gradually change their economic strategy. Many of them develop mixed strategies: fishing/gathering and hoe cultivation, pastoralism and hunting etc.

Perhaps this should be included in the technology model somehow?

• Against determined resistance the submission of primitive people, well-adapted to their environment, is a hard task, even for a gunpowder state
  
• Perhaps is is easier to conquer an empire (like the Aztec) than to add a formerly unorganised territory to your kingdom
  
• When confronted with a hostile force, primitive people can either fight, hide or migrate. Yet as soon as the danger disappears, they will come back

The picture that's forming in my head is now that the "barbarians" of GGS aren't single units like in civ, on the contrary the whole environment in which civilizations try to survive is "barbaric". This is going to be a much bigger challenge, which I think is a good thing. I also like the feature that there will probably be much more diversity between the organization of different civs: from the unorganized bands to strictly centralized empires. Each require different kind of tactics to be dealt with.

• For pastoral societies, wealth is a burden: the more primitive their economy, the more formidable they'll become militarily

I like this tradeoff. Nomadic civs are very attractive in the early game, but once the stationary nations reach a certain point the nomads suddenly need to adapt, and are perhaps in a worse position due to their lack of more complex government and economy. The trick is to anticipate the end of the nomadic era well in advance.

With everything not quoted here, I pretty much agree.

AND: hunter-gathers are not necessarily unorganised, nor will they inevitably remain unorganised and hunting/gathering for ever! And even unorganised bands of hunter-gatherers could be a nuisance! One thing they can do is to migrate, which often will cause trouble.

That's why need a solid model for migration.

I do not support the idea that every region should necessarily contain at least one city. This is irrealistic and actually rules out empires of nomads, like the Huns or Mongols, unless you would make their regions excessively large or would consider a village of 3,000 inhabitants technically still a city. It is also my opinion that a world with more variety will be much more interesting, having both highly urbanized regions like ancient Sumer, Renaissance Italy or seventeenth century Holland and thinly populated areas like Australia, the Sahara, Turkestan and North America before 1850.

Ah, the thing about "cities" is that they aren't really cities per se, more like centrals of government. A region could be ruled from a city as well as a military base, or a unit that can move around.

I also hope that GGS will show the four Types of Societies as outlined by J.Diamond on page 268 of The Book:

• Band
• Tribe
• Chiefdom
• State

In my view in the beginning of the game, the 'Civilisations'/players all begin this game as Tribes, occupying only one hex, while the rest of the world is partly uninhabited and -for the largest part- occupied by unorganised bands. I hope this bands will be more than just 'lame ducks', presenting both a threat and an obstacle to expansion!

Hmm.. my memory is failing me, what exactly was the difference between tribes and chiefdoms? I think that the players should start as chiefdoms, or tribes that are just on the brink of becoming chiefdoms, but that's again just a gut feeling.

Some time ago I made a list of all data which -at least in my opinion- should be kept up at hex level in some way/somewhere, directly or indirectly:

• terrain type
• to which macroregion it belongs to: here could be stored information about climate of the region and its domesticable plants and/or animals
• population size
• the dominant nationality/ethnicity
• the dominant religion
• the prevailing production mode
  I would suggest ten different strategies: 1. hunting/gathering 2. pastoralism 3. hoe cultivation 4. plough cultivation and six 'mixed economies', i.e. combinations of 1 and 2, 1 and 3, etc; this would make transitions between them possible
• whether the population is sedentary or nomadic (of course pastoralists are always nomadic while plough cultivators are always sedentary)
• whether the population consists of unorganized 'bands' or one organized 'tribe'
• an indication of the degree of bellicosity of the natives: this could be simple: peaceful/warlike or in degree
• perhaps some indication of the tech level of those natives
• improvements like irrigation, roads, mines, fortresses, cities etc;

Some additions:

• Secondary religions/ethinicities (othewise there's a danger that certain ethnicities are wiped out too easily).
• How about fishing as a production mode? Does that fall into some of those categories? Also, in modern times industry should also have its place somewhere.
• About sendentary/nomadic distinction, could there be several levels? A quality of how easily the people will migrate, for instance. Or what exactly is the qualitative difference between the two?
• Diseases.

I'm not sure if I am putting this in the right thread either, it probably doesn't matter.