Tech Research Chart 2

[Richard Bruns]

Maybe 4. Not to make a tech tree that reminds players there being led down a path
----
I agree. But your tech tree requires that the player discover eastern ideas to do certain things while the civ2 tech tree similarly requires the player to discover western ideas. I don't think that the player should have to do either. But if cultural technologies do not lead to better things, the player will ignore them. My proposal would make the player research culture, but the cultire would not be out of place.
----
FE Chi is only really an eastern type idea, and although it did surface for a breef moment in greece, it was snuffed out by all the other philosophers before it got a hold and most people don't even know about it today. What I'm trying to say is that although some things can be simplified for cross-cultural purposes, others can't.
----
You are right. But instead of thinking about what something IS, think about what it DOES. Is there a western tech that does almost the same thing?
----
Plus, although we are trying to make it close to simulating history pretty good, we're not nessarily using the same cultures as history has had.
----
So what cultures are we using?
----
Not nessasarily. If your society is very strcitly arocratic and heirarchial and democracy was introduced it prob would bounce.
----
Democracy is a diffrent technology because it does a very different thing than feudalism.
----
however whatever culture u pick will still impact how u advance alomg the tree.
----
I would be cautious about this. If this is done the players would choose culture based only on what they want to do. I have a vision of everyone wanting to choose vikings or mongols so they can stomp the neighboring civs early, take their tech, and build up.
----
This is a good idea, but may be hard to code. I don't know though for sure since i don't code, but just reading it gives me that idea.
----
You might be right. Are there any coders reading this who can give us info about this?
----
Prob its just me but i never liked the titles "advanced" or numbers after techs.
I don't like the numbers because it doesn't really give good desciptions. Wow i've just dicovered missiles 2! Well what's the big deal? What's so great about missiles 2 that sets it apart from missiles?
----
You are absolutely right. But your concern is unfounded. As I wrote in the proposal, the player would never see the words "Missile Weapons 2." It is just a coding description. The player would read that their people developed the bow and they can now make bowmen.

The idea in my proposal is that the techs are the same and teh game is balanced, but the player sees a lot of diversity and each game is unique.

[Lord God Jinnai]

FE Chi is only really an eastern type idea, and although it did surface for a breef moment in greece, it was snuffed out by all the other philosophers before it got a hold and most people don't even know about it today. What I'm trying to say is that although some things can be simplified for cross-cultural purposes, others can't.
----
You are right. But instead of thinking about what something IS, think about what it DOES. Is there a western tech that does almost the same thing?
----
----
Actually no, there really isn't. Like i said that philosopher was the closest to it and well it never blossumed so that type of thought never occured really in western thought too much. This is one reason many people have had trouble throughout history understanding the oriental ways of life.

Plus, although we are trying to make it close to simulating history pretty good, we're not nessarily using the same cultures as history has had.
----
So what cultures are we using?
----
----
Ok let me rephrase this. We are not ness mimicking the cultures that were put in place on our history, but parts of them that can be put in many differnt ways, which may mimick a certain culture, or may be totally original.

I would be cautious about this. If this is done the players would choose culture based only on what they want to do. I have a vision of everyone wanting to choose vikings or mongols so they can stomp the neighboring civs early, take their tech, and build up.
----
This has pretty much been decided and i think its a good idea overall. There will be other modifiers that just culture when dealing with tech advancement, but even considering ur point of view, the mongols and vikings had certain limitations and there will be great benifits to players who choose other paths. This will have to be playtested to make sure. Also during early periods, you'll have to worry about finding the cultures and also about being overun by barbarians (not as bad as civ2, FE only up to a certain time period and prob can also try to absorb them into ur culture). anyway i digress.

The idea in my proposal is that the techs are the same and teh game is balanced, but the player sees a lot of diversity and each game is unique.
----
that;s a good idea, but could u be more clear...well i guess i can wait for ur update on the tech proposal for specifics, which BTW u have an updated figure as to when u might be done?

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ:

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I see a contradiction. You say that you do not want to use cultures that are strictly historical, but at the same time the player's culture permanently alters the way that the player advances technology. You have locked the player into a certain growth pattern based on the culture.

My idea was to assign general cultural groupings like Arab or Northern European. The technology tree does not change at all but the technology looks different. This should make play balancing a lot easier. Also, the player is not being led down a certain tech path based on culture.

It will take a few weeks to fill in the details. I plan on including a lot of stuff. I don't expect you to use it all, some winnowing will be required.

Here are some examples.

Pesticides: Farm output increases by some percentage. The player is partially or fully immune to a Locust Swarm natural disaster, depending on province infrastructure. Pollution increases and there is now a chance for an Algae Bloom natural disaster.

Radio: Ship navigation improves. Naval groups fight at increased effectiveness. Culture becomes more homogenized across any section of your civ that is served by a power grid. (The dominant cultural agent in the most advanced province is considered to be in charge of programming.) Also, it becomes easier for your government to spread propaganda.

[Richard Bruns]

Oops, double post.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited November 18, 1999).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I see a contradiction. You say that you do not want to use cultures that are strictly historical, but at the same time the player's culture permanently alters the way that the player advances technology. You have locked the player into a certain growth pattern based on the culture.

My idea was to assign general cultural groupings like Arab or Northern European.
-----
No there's no contradiction. I said i don't want to have a "northern euopean" culture and an "arabic" culture per say, but maybe "Oriental culture with some european religious infrastucture that has a technology base of pre-colonial africa"

As far as the second part goes, well that is part of the idea. I know i want some techs to be relatively easy for any culture to learn, but others i think certain types of cultures just should have a hard time coping with learning, but not have it impossible. That is so that u have to make a choice when u start as to what type of culture u want because that will ultimatly shape your entire society. And any culture will have weak spots, but i digress.
----
The technology tree does not change at all but the technology looks different. This should make play balancing a lot easier. Also, the player is not being led down a certain tech path based on culture.
----
That is a good idea, but i still think some techs need to be culturally attuned. Its simply the percentage we should try for.
----
It will take a few weeks to fill in the details. I plan on including a lot of stuff. I don't expect you to use it all, some winnowing will be required.
----
ok just send me the copy when ur done. Give me some leadway so i have a good idea when it might come. I don't want to suddenly check my mail and there it is with no warning. Anyway what is "winnowing?"
----
Pesticides: Farm output increases by some percentage. The player is partially or fully immune to a Locust Swarm natural disaster, depending on province infrastructure. Pollution increases and there is now a chance for an Algae Bloom natural disaster.

Radio: Ship navigation improves. Naval groups fight at increased effectiveness. Culture becomes more homogenized across any section of your civ that is served by a power grid. (The dominant cultural agent in the most advanced province is considered to be in charge of programming.) Also, it becomes easier for your government to spread propaganda.
----
I see ur adding desc. That was going to me next task for unofical release 4.0 prob.

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ:
---
I said i don't want to have a "northern euopean" culture and an "arabic" culture per say, but maybe "Oriental culture with some european religious infrastucture that has a technology base of pre-colonial africa"
---
We must have different descriptions of culture. In my mind, culture is mostly independent of things like technology or institutions. If you gave yourself an Oriental culture, then you would still have a primitive technology base at some point.

What do you mean by 'european religious infrastructure'? I thought that a church hierarchy like Europe's would violate basic Oriental ideas about religion. And if you are talking about monasteries or cathedrals, then my tech model would not disallow that. If the Oriental player heard about how helpful the Benedictine monasteries are, that player could copy the idea. But their monasteries would end up having Oriental architecture instead of European. The function would not change, but the appearance would change to fit in better.
---
I know i want some techs to be relatively easy for any culture to learn, but others i think certain types of cultures just should have a hard time coping with learning, but not have it impossible.
---
How can you make this kind of judgement? Suppose that you set Vikings or Mongols to be warlike and make it hard for them to learn. You have then said that these races of people are violent and stupid. You are basically saying that no matter what happens, no matter how the people change over thousands of years, they will always be inept at science.

Besides, this is not accurate anyway. The Vikings were warlike because they faced intense population pressures. Once they settled down in their new lands, they bacame farmers and merchants and were as peaceful as anyone in the region. It seems that your tech model would make it very hard for a player to change like this. You are leading the player down a path that is based on a stereotype, and you are saying that a group of people do not have the ability to change.
---
That is so that u have to make a choice when u start as to what type of culture u want because that will ultimatly shape your entire society.
---
I just don't think that it is accurate or proper for the entire civ to be locked into a certain mindset for thousands of years. Anyone looking at Europe around 1200 AD would say, "These people are stupid and warlike. They will never be able to learn science well." Yet 600 years later Europe had the most advanced technology on the planet while science and art were advancing rapidly. Your method would not allow a group of people to change like that.

My method would say that all people are equal, but they do things in different ways. Anyone has an equal chance of doing something, but they might do it in a different way.

PS
'Winnowing' is cutting out bad things so that only good stuff remains. I will let you know before I mail the tech list. I really don't think my effects will make it into 4.0 It requires a lot of coding and the completion of almost every other game model. My ideas are in general terms because I know the models are not frnalized yet.

[Glak]

I suggest not having tech have anything do with culture, I also suggest that it not have anything to do with graphics. These kind of things just lead to problems.

[Lord God Jinnai]

We must have different descriptions of culture. In my mind, culture is mostly independent of things like technology or institutions. If you gave yourself an Oriental culture, then you would still have a primitive technology base at some point.
----
Culture is not independant of technology. FE the introduction of factories is currently changing the culture of China and has already done so in japan (within less than 200 years). Sure these have other factors that change the culture, but technology is a key part.
----
What do you mean by 'european religious infrastructure'? I thought that a church hierarchy like Europe's would violate basic Oriental ideas about religion. And if you are talking about monasteries or cathedrals, then my tech model would not disallow that. If the Oriental player heard about how helpful the Benedictine monasteries are, that player could copy the idea. But their monasteries would end up having Oriental architecture instead of European. The function would not change, but the appearance would change to fit in better.
----
I was saying that except for the tech level and religious infrastructure it would like the oriental type culture. There's more than religion and tech that go into culture after all.
----
How can you make this kind of judgement? Suppose that you set Vikings or Mongols to be warlike and make it hard for them to learn. You have then said that these races of people are violent and stupid. You are basically saying that no matter what happens, no matter how the people change over thousands of years, they will always be inept at science.
----
I NEVER EVER said that they couldn't be better at learning certain techs, let alone that they were stupid. FE the mongols would have an advantage at learning animal-riding, spiritual warfare and any other ancient/middle aged warfare tech, including prob some other techs. They would have a few that they'd be worse with such as perhaps, seafaring, some types of philosophy's, etc. Also the vikings FE would be better at making seafaring and river boats, but not as good at other stuff. I'd have to look at the techs to see what. Prob agriculture, a little bit. Each type would have certain advantages and disadvantages. This was basically one of the fundimental frameworks we've had for most of the tech model. I don't mind what ur trying to do for a lot of the techs, but ur going to have to show me a lot better if u think it should be for all them. There are just some things FE the british wouldn't be able to do as well as the chinese and vise versa. The use of culture to modify some techs is also historically accurate. Plus it does add more strategy to this game if u know there's going to be something u can't do as well so instead u steal or trade for those technologies maybe. That's how we were planning on doing that, atleast 1 reason for the cultural modifiers.
----
Besides, this is not accurate anyway. The Vikings were warlike because they faced intense population pressures. Once they settled down in their new lands, they bacame farmers and merchants and were as peaceful as anyone in the region. It seems that your tech model would make it very hard for a player to change like this. You are leading the player down a path that is based on a stereotype, and you are saying that a group of people do not have the ability to change.
----
People can and do change...the techs don't affect change much. The cost would only really be the end result with little impact on the progress of things. Sure ur going to prob advance more in warlike measures if u start out more warlike, but your culture is not static, but dynamic and a few gen. later ur people may want peaceful trade more than war and ur military techs will cost more than say economic advancements.
----
I just don't think that it is accurate or proper for the entire civ to be locked into a certain mindset for thousands of years.
----
Again it isn't for ness that long although it can be. The short. I think japan had one of the greatest and fastest transitions from a feudalistic economy to a tech equal to the US in ~200 years. Not only that, but the mindset of the people was changed. Then after the occupation, it was changed again in only 1, count it, 1, gerneration. It does require u to do more than just sit around though, ur right. But the point is it can be done and a culture isn't that static ness.
----
Anyone looking at Europe around 1200 AD would say, "These people are stupid and warlike. They will never be able to learn science well." Yet 600 years later Europe had the most advanced technology on the planet while science and art were advancing rapidly. Your method would not allow a group of people to change like that.
----
And how's that? Ur model could have the very same flaws only in differnt way. Just because its not culture oriented doesn't make it better for that purpose.
----
My method would say that all people are equal, but they do things in different ways. Anyone has an equal chance of doing something, but they might do it in a different way.
----
But that's NOT true. There are certain peoples who are better at some things than at others. But there are also things that all cultures are equally good at,

Glak:
Well we're still debating cultures and i think they should be in for realism. As for the other if its going to be too hard to code well we'll scrap it, but otherwise its a good idea.

[Glak]

of course have cultures, but I think you are going too far, at least in this discussion. If I have a big navy yes I think my boats should tech up faster. But if I arbitrarily call myself the vikings and live inland I should have no such adjustment. So what I am saying is have the tech be related to the current situation.

I would also try to avoid hardwiring specific cultures and cultural traits into the game. Using words like "western" and "oriental" just confuses the issues. Stuff like that can be slapped onto an abstract framework for flavor if need be.

[Mark_Everson]

Glak:

Sorry, nearly simultaneous post, missed yours the last time around.

Agree with you and Richard that we don't want weird metaphysical ****, like Vikings = magical advantage to seafaring. The kind of thing I'm talking about is:

Your culture has high regard for merchants

Therefore your people are more interested than usual in commercial and transportation technolgies

Lets say the barbarians come over the hill and your civ is mostly sacked because the merchants (say they are politically powerful) were too busy making money to protect them. Your civ's culture might evolve in the direction of higher military status and lower social status and political for the merchants. This would have further ramifications on tech. The player could try and stop this evolution, or push it by spending money and (making an attempt at) distributing political power differently.

Richard: Kinda thought you were using that definition. I prefer the more inclusive one.


[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited November 18, 1999).]

[Richard Bruns]

Our definitions don't have to conflict. Yours is used for game mechanics and changes as the situation demands. Mine remains mostly constant over time and is used for artistic convention (pagoda vs. cathedral vs. mosque) and things like Spiritual War. I just wanted civs to look different while using only one tech tree.

[alms66]

I like the idea of not being able to fully control your tech gains, but others won't. So maybe a compromise could be reached. If this is used it could be an option. You could either use the "Historical" method(Richard's model) or the "Full-Control" method(original model).

But a few Comments:

1 Richard Bruns said "Standard of living: If people are starving, they will not be inventive." -- I say wrong. It may not be totally accurate but to me starving people would contribute, but only in how to get more food. Maybe it would be more appropriate to say health level adversely affects tech research, because dying people can't contribute.
2 I really like the idea of being able to suppress or promote social ideas.
3 Just an odd idea(though I think it was already proposed somewhere) -- When you have contact with another civ (like merchant travel through it , or war), you should be able to learn some of their tech. Like if Greeks attack Egyptians and Egypt has chariots and Greece doesn't, Greeks should get a bonus or something to learn about "the Wheel" or whatever tech it may be.

[Richard Bruns]

Toubabo_Koomi:

We have agreed on a compromise. It is in the "Characters 2" thread. The player will control basic technologies and industrial processes, but a large proportion of specific ideas are supplied by inventor or philosopher characters.

In response to Comments:
1) I should have thought that statement through more carefully. You are right.

2) I will post a comprehensive Ideas model proposal sometime soon. I am in the middle of reviewing the existing models so my idea will fit in better.

3) This is already modeled. In ancient times this technology spreading is very rapid, but in modern times things are more complex and you have to steal the blueprints.

Thank you for your input.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Richard (mainly) and Glak: i was using the same definition as mark and i think that is what caused all this confusion. That's just how bad language is. We can speak the same tounge and still misunderstand each other.

Mark: Yea those sound fine. land and water transportation for basic also maybe. And animal riding (with breeding maybe as a soft tech) and riverboats. That should cover the basics for everything...wait copper working as a inital tech (if copper's available). This will act as a soft tech for iron working.

-------
Personally, I think only the 60 or so most crucial achievements of humanity should be regular techs. And All the regular techs should allow you to Build or Do something Really new.
------
I also think 60 might be cutting it a little 2 low, maybe 80 and 20 future techs for a nice even 100. Not all but 90%. some techs should just lead to more techs like the Theory of Evolution. It might improve things, but not ness allow for new items/cultures/major changes.

-----
Basic techs should also have some techs embedded in them IMO. This would allow for some advances that are pretty much on the standard track to be covered, without them being a whole separate entry. This would also add some description to the otherwise bland basic techs.
-----
Almpst all of the techs have basic techs at certain percentages if that's what u mean, otherwise i don't get u.

-----
A basic tech at the 0% level is essentially neolithic technology. 100% is the modern level. The apogee of ancient civilizations might be something like 20%. Technology past modern level just goes past 100%.
-----
This is true for about 80-90% of them. Those that aren't well are fairly modern and we'll decide what percentage for them is equal to modern day level. As far as i can recall its only 3-4: Electronics, Air Transportaion, Space Transportain and if not there i'm wanting to add computers. But that's it unless we get into future basic techs (cybernetics FE), but I'll wait on that.

-----
Taking as a premise that we want things to be fairly even throughout history, what can we say?
-----
I think this is generally true, though in fits and starts. Also though thing have changed in the last 2 centuries. In the 19th century we discovered a lot more than in the previous few centuries and in the later half of this century alone we've done more than pretty much since the dawn of civ (well maybe not that far).

-----
Temporary conclusions (2 will be changed later)
1) tech points earned per turn grow by about a factor of 1000 over the game
2) for every 5% increase in basic tech there is a doubling in the cost
(this may need to change as we determine how many prerequisites each basic tech has, and what it's penalty is)
-----
Actually i was planning on having each with its own set cost and multiplier per % point since some techs are easier to advance in than others. All would start out at say 5, but from there they'd increase at differnt rate's exponetially per percentage point (min 1).

Finnaly after replying i thought of this:

First off this is related a lot with culture as well as technology but since i'm here and it does have to do with technology i'm posting it now b4 i forget (which already happened once)

Second I don't know if this could even poss be implimented, but its a cool though anyway that i thought i'd share.

Now for the idea:

Ok, of all the major advances throughout history, the greatest is agriciculutre (note i am saying history, not prehistory in which case it would be fire). Anyway this is because it reshaped the whole way humans were up to that point. It impacted religion, migration (or the new way of the lack of it), hunting (or the new way of less people doing it), trade, devolopement of large comunities and cities, governments, need for transportation, etc. Basically nothing has so impacted our life since then, until a few years ago (or rather this invention will, according to historians).

What is this? Well i can guarantee u've all heard of it. Its the computer.

Think about it for a few minutes. What has changed, esp within the last decade, because of this machine? Well for one, instant communication around the world anytime (cept for malfuctions ), the ability to predict natural disasters and weather, creation of the internet (which is also considered by some of these same people as the second only to computers as having or will have as much of an effect on society), the fact that for the first time ever electronic recording of information (though video and audio) is possiblem, electronic text will soon (if not already) replace written text as the norm of keeping records (this is a first also for using non-paper since clay tablets), its allowed for discoveries that have disproved some very basic religious concepts, as well as allowed new means of speading others, redefined the way we live to such an extent that is unheard of and its not done yet.

[Mark_Everson]

LGJ:

>
-----
Basic techs should also have some techs embedded in them IMO. This would allow for
some advances that are pretty much on the standard track to be covered, without them
being a whole separate entry. This would also add some description to the otherwise
bland basic techs.
-----
Almpst all of the techs have basic techs at certain percentages if that's what u mean,
otherwise i don't get u.
>

What I meant was that you would get certain technologies automatically when particular basic techs get to a certain level. These "embedded" technologies might allow you to build new things just like single tech advancements. An example might be that Civil Engineering 15% would mean you've achieved the technology for Aqueducts. no other techs would be required, once you get to 15% you can build them. It would IMO add some excitement to the basic techs, and give us a place to put some techs that aren't "first string".

>
Actually i was planning on having each with its own set cost and multiplier per % point
since some techs are easier to advance in than others. All would start out at say 5, but from there they'd increase at differnt rate's exponetially per percentage point (min 1)
>
Sounds Good. I think we're just dealing with first shots at it anyway, because there's a tremendous amount we'll need to do for play balancing.

Computers:
Well, don't get me wrong, I like computers alot and think they're a really important innovation, but IMO they're not Nearly as important as Agriculture. I think industrialization easily beats computers for its importance. For one thing, no industrialization, no computers. Probably there are others too.