Research system draft

[Peter Dobrovka]

Mark:
You are right, there are religious people who are great inventors and scientists but in general I think that it is essential and logical that religion has a negative effect on research. Religion is not only modern abstract believe in god, religion is also what we find in the history of religion: myths of gods and demons, forbidden places and forbidden thoughts. Ancient cultures did repress discovies because the new technologies could prove that on that certain mountain there are no gods and ghosts. The could prove that the earth runs around the sun and not the sun around the earth.
And so on.
I think you should have religions that are supporting science but are weak for military or integrating conquered cities (f.e. old greek polytheism) and religions that are very rigid (nearly no science) but fanatic (good for war) (f.e. Christianism, Islam).
But before you have to argue again: I know, these features do not depend only on religion.

Blade Runner:
I agree it is nice to have more than one path leading to the same technology but we should ask us: are the technologies still the same. In your Example: is technological antigravitation the same as levitation? Can I build levitated tanks and spaceships?

manurein:
This is true, scientists seldom research for military interest only, but the opposite is also true: Many discoveries have a militaristic origin and were used for peaceful purpose only later. The A-Bomb is an excellent example! And the H-Bomb even more: What else use do we have from nuclear fusion yet? We even can't build fusion power plants.
We should not forget: military can have own research facilities but it is no must.

Peter

------------------
3DTT - the 3D sequel to Transport Tycoon - demo 4.0 coming soon
Path of Mankind. Turnbased Civ-like game - demo 15 coming soon

[Mark_Everson]

Hrafnkell:

I like your summary of possible modifications. Just a few comments.

- There are no Tech levels any longer, but the prereqs will be structured in such a way that no drastic irregularities should occur in research (i.e. players researching something highly advanced while still on a rather primitive stage). This will most likely increase the need for ‘Hard’ prereqs, as the TLs no longer provide certain restraints.

I don't think this will be such a problem. For one thing the people will be always working a little on the easy techs. So even if neither the player nor the people have a particular affinity for pottery it will certainly be obtained long before flight. Also the point cost system, which I assume will have roughly exponentially increasing costs will mean that any technology that has Any use will become cost-effective in time.

You are completely right on the issue of always letting the player call the shots. They can invest the state's money in whatever tech schemes they see fit, whether cost-effective or not. Now This has Great historical accuracy .

Manu:
I agree with your statement. However military "funding" has been a very important stimulus to technology at times. It is certainly not The Only, or even the most important one. I think as Peter said it is important enough that it should Be in the system.

Peter:
I think we can let this point rest in peace .

[Blade Runner]

OK, now seriously.

The idea was serious, but the comment was silly. What I meant to produce a complex technology (or advances) tree, where you can follow one or another way to win.
Let say after the A advance there is an advance which called B and an another which called C. If you choice the B advance, you can not research the C and that part of the technology tree, which related with the C advance. We can join this advances let say to different kind of governments. Let say the B advance very useful if you have a democratic government and very bad for your emporium if you have a dictatorship (like the free press advance). In this case the technology tree will be really like a tree. If you start to go one of the branches you can not switch to an another. Maybe this rule is too strong. Maybe we can say: if there is a free press advance and there was a democratic government to switch to a dictatorship and start to research let say ABC weapons cost a lot of money, resources and a long time anarchy before the people accept the new rule.
My problem was with the CIV like game, when I switch to a democratic government take the same time anarchy like to switch to fundamentalism or communism from democracy.

Blade Runner

[manurein]

Hi guys. Random ideas on the techs.
Concerning the military which provides science : think at this intersting phenomena : the development of the A bomb in America during WWII has also led to the development of the first American, electronic computer (it semms the that the first ever electronic computer was developed in Germany). In other words, the A bomb was such a huge project that they have developed new thechnologies quite from the ground to carry it out. This gives me the idea that, maybe, some advances unknown to the player which are prerequisites to another he chooses to develop, maybe the RP cost of the prerequisite may be included (maybe also decreased) to the cost of the project the player chooses.

[Kull]

Research Model Comments:

Hrafnkell,

A very nice model, just like all the others I've examined so far. It looks like you've included most of the really important stuff, so I'm left with only a few suggestions and a couple questions:

Influence of Government Type:

Democracy/Republic: While it's clear that having an open democratic society is highly conducive to the rapid development of knowledge, it's also a very porous container. The outright theft of secret information is clearly something which belongs in the diplomacy model, but what about advances like refrigeration or television or the internet? In the real world, when a democracy gains that advance so does EVERYONE else! That's not true of every advance, but it certainly pertains to the commercial ones. Suggestion: To incorporate this in your model, there should be some benefit which flows to the discoverer. How about 1) exclusive use for "X" number of turns (only exception being a civ which steals or discovers it independently during this time period) and 2) Ensuring that economic benefits flow to the discoverer for another "X" number of turns.

Influence of Trade:

Historically, trade routes promoted the spread of ideas (knowledge) as well as goods. Suggestion: The more trade routes between one civ and another, the greater the liklihood that research data will also change hands. This should be factored by government type (an authoritarian one would be more likely to receive than give.)

Bogus Advances:

Throughout the ages people and governments have wasted a lot of time and effort in the pursuit of "Bogus Advances". A good example would be Alchemy, and I know there are many others. Is this a feature which is worth adding to your model? Maybe every era could have at least one, as kind of a wild card. Once the research starts, it can't be totally eliminated until you've moved on to another era. As an example: Your Civ enters the Renaissance and your Natural Science people begin to research "Bodily Humors". It's a dry hole, leading nowhere. The AI knows this, so half the Natural Science budget gets allocated to "Circulatory Systems" which is how the body really works. This keeps you from getting stuck, but serves as a real drag on Natural Science until you've left the Renaissance behind (and with it the discredited "science" of "Bodily Humors".)

Question 1 - Will the model be able to accomodate massive government funded research efforts such as the Manhattan Project (A-Bomb) and the "Space Race"?

Question 2 - In the "How RPs are Calculated" section there are several references to number ranges, such as "between 0,8 and 1,2". Other than for grid coordinates, I'm not familiar with this numbering system (ie. two digits separated by commas). How exactly does it work? Unless, of course, the commas are supposed to be periods? In which case, "never mind"!

[Hrafnkell]

Kull:
thanks for the response,
>
Influence of Government Type:
>
All advances will 'leak out' sooner or later, I agree that in a democratic/republic regime this 'leakage' would be a bit faster.
This 'leakage' will probably be handled through trade, so the only real chance of holding onto your advances is not to trade at all :-).

>
How about 1) exclusive use for "X" number of turns (only exception being a civ which steals or discovers it independently during this time period) and 2) Ensuring that economic benefits flow to the discoverer for another "X" number of turns.
>
Both suggestions are good, here´s one more. 3) the original discoverer can only use the project as a prereq for X number of turns (to simulate that only he Really knows what it´s all about).

>
Influence of Trade:
>
I´m not sure how trade will be handled, if it´s by establishing trade routes then your idea is fine, otherwise we´ll just use the bulk of the trade. I agree that other factors are important, such as the governmental form, cultural likeness and proximity.

>
Bogus Advances:
>
This is a good idea. But we must be careful not to make this something that the players begin to loath. Maybe we could allow players to 'transfer' all or part of the RPs from the Bogus advance to another once people see it isn´t leading them anywhere?

>
Question 1 - Will the model be able to accomodate massive government funded research efforts such as the Manhattan Project (A-Bomb) and the "Space Race"?
>
Yes, I didn´t make it clear enough in the draft, but players can buy RPs, at the start of the game when the governmental structure ois weak such buyings are very uncost-efficient, later on they become cheaper.

>
Question 2 - In the "How RPs are Calculated" section there are several references to number ranges, such as "between 0,8 and 1,2". Other than for grid coordinates, I'm not familiar with this numbering system (ie. two digits separated by commas). How exactly does it work? Unless, of course, the commas are supposed to be periods? In which case, "never mind"!
>
Here in Iceland (and I think in most of Europe) commas are used to seperate digits and fractions, and periods are used to seperate thousands. So, from My POV it´s suppsoed to be a comma, form Your POV it´s supposed to be a period :-).

[This message has been edited by Hrafnkell (edited June 06, 1999).]

[Kull]

"The Clash of Cultures!"

[Dominique]

Hrafnkell,

I'd like to see a wider range for the effects of an advance - more or less EVERY aspect of the game should be a possible subject to it, even if we don't use all variations in the basic game.

Example: I'd like to see an advance that gives the player a free (maybe unique?) improvement to city / province XYZ.

While this maybe isn't necessary for the basic game, it's a fantastic opportunity for all those scenario builders out there.

Btw. I think the same should be true the other way round, so it should be possible to build improvements or "wonders" (or the like) which result in granting a random advance / a special advance / a range of advances.



[This message has been edited by Dominique (edited June 07, 1999).]

[Hrafnkell]

The list over the possible effects of advances isn´t complete. I totally agree that every aspect of the game could be touched by research.

As for the Wonders, I don´t think we can (or want to?) have Wonders like they work in Civ. The Building-based economy of Civ makes it easy to allow players building Wonder instead of building/army unit. But the econ. system in Clash is much different and makes it much more difficult to build Wonders the same way as in Civ, IMHO. A better way, IMO, in representing 'specialities' is to tie it into the game system, like awarding the first player to land a man on the moon, or the first to circumnavigate the globe. These awards can be of any kind: technologies, money, diplomacy bonus, units, information, stability bonus, whatever.

[Druid2]

Hrafnkell:

Could you please give us [Programming Team] some help? We need to know what data you're going to require to be stored for each node in the research tree.

And, if you know, how often do you think you'll need it. E.g.: "only when a research discovery is complete" or "every turn" or "once per game" or whatever.

Specifically:
what item of data [name or number or etc.]
how big each item might be [length of text or maximum value of a number]

if there are some aspects that you have a general idea about but dont know how to do, [for ex.: Node A needs to enable 0 to 5 different nodes]... just say what you've got in mind, and we'll fly from there.

Everyone expects this may change as we go down the path, but it will be a place to start.

Post it in the Programming Thread

Thanks

-Druid2-
King of the Gypsys
Herder of Cats
Duke of Programming Coordination

[Hrafnkell]

This actually is in response to some discussions on the Military model thread about military research. I decided to post this here instead of there. My basic idea on this is that each new military concept, so to speak, has between 2 and 4 research advances associated with it, depending on how ‘thourough’ the new concept is. Players would have to research those projects one at a time, and only those who researched them all would reap the full benefits from the new concept. However, even if players only research it partially they still reap some rewards. The basic project is the new Equipment. Next comes the Formation technique to go along with it; then comes the Tactics to apply the maneuvers the new equipment/formation demands; and finally comes the Organization which deals with new training techniques and armament production so the new concept can be fully appreciated.
Now, I know that not all military innovations started with new weaponry, but I think it´s OK to be a little ahistorical on this. As an example, lets take the Romans and their Legions. First is the Equipment, in this case weapons like the short sword (the gladius), a new javelin-type weapon (the pilum) and the rectangular shield (the scrutum). The Formation project would allow players to form units in the Legion. The Tactics project increases the combat efficiency of Legion units and the Organization project probably would make them cheaper or something. So a player could decide to research only the first two, he can still form the Legion, but the full advantage of the concept is not yet realized for him. Of course through repeated use of Legion units he should get a discount in researching the other two projects, the people might even start one themselves. For less ‘complete’ military innovations some of the latter projects would be joined or discarded, so f.e. maybe the Formation/Tactics project would become one project and there would be no Organization project. Not all innovations demand an overhaul of the whole military, after all.

[Peter Dobrovka]

Bogus advance:
Nice idea, but pleaaaase no! Why should you invent technologies that make no sense? The amount of senseless ideas is uncountable, you can't name all of them!
If calculate research points you only calculate the ideas bringing you nearer to the goal. And in the same way if you build a tech tree you will list only the tech that makes sense.
If you wish to have a technological delay durig a certain type of age or government you should reduce the research point output per turn and call it "waste".

Technology branches:
Blade Runner, you wrote: "If you start to go one of the branches you can not switch to an another."
How will you justify this restriction? Do you think these problems do exist in reality?
According to the people's preferences as mentioned they will research technologies they like and are interested in with more effort than technologies which are disliked.
I agree totally that unpopular techs will cost more time and resources to research and the unpopularity will vary with religion, government and history. But why would it restrict you from researching tech branch A if you make a discovery in tech branch B?

Government change
Little off topic here. I found no rule for the time of anarchy between two forms of government, except that anarchy is very rare at all. Normally a new government is placed immediatly after the old has gone. It is already there when the old is still ruling.

A new suggestion (don't know it is already said or not):
What about researching techs already discovered?
No, I am not crazy! But I think if you discover a new tech of irrigation or a fire weapon you can research improvements after you have the basic technology. The things you build from this tech get better the more over-researched it is.
F.e. if you discover gun powder you can build musketeers and research explosives - but these musketeers are less effective than a knight or swordsman in the beginning. But researching on the gun-powder-topic improves them until they are much better in battle than the ancient units.
Of course you can implement this idea as technological advance in the tech tree, f.e. "advanced fireweapons, requires gunpowder, effect: doubles the strength of musketeers". But with my suggestion you would implement something like "gunpowder 1, enhancing musketeers by 10%", "gunpowder 2, enhancing musketeers by 20%", "gunpowder x" without any limit. Of course I suggest the formula: 2 times better technology level requires 4 times more time and research cost.

Peter

------------------
3DTT - the 3D sequel to Transport Tycoon - demo 4.0 in June 1999
Path of Mankind. Turnbased Civ-like game - demo 15 coming soon

[CormacMacArt]

I think that the basic set up is good, especially deviding up the techs into different fields. Since I am a scientist who has been involved in research for ten years, I will give you a point that I tried to make over at CivIII: NO ONE IS GUARANTEED SUCCESS IN RESEARCH. This is a fantacy that the U.S. military still believes. The points that you gather should increase the liklyhood that you are successful in advancing in the particular field that you are researching in, but not mean that you are definitly going to acheive your goal. If all you had to do was put more money into research to get a new technology, my life would be so much easier!

[Keli]

I guess this is one the areas were Realism and Playability conflict.
I agree that nothing is ever certain in research, but I think it's very dangerous to make a game where players can spend a Lot of money on something they may never get.
Until a more suitable system is suggested I think it's best to stick with what we got. Indeed our system is much more 'realistic' than many other games of this type because players can never exactly know how long or how costly the research will be. All they know is that they'll get there in the end. I think that factor must still be in the system if we don't want to frustruate or anger a lot of players.

[CormacMacArt]

You are looking at it from the perspective of the player's civ in a vacuum. If the player is researching 4 different fields (as in SMAC) the probablities become higher. Also, this is being played out on all the other (AI) players. Random chance says that somewhere, someone is going to discover something, but yes, there will be bursts of discovery and "dark ages" where everything is stagnant. Indeed the probability could be related to the diversity of your civ along with the number of civs that you have peaceful relations with (thus increasing the number of perspectives to a certain problem).