Technology System E-Mail Archive

[Richard Bruns]

> I wanted to put the application techs and items/imrpov on there.
> ---
> The problem is that we do not know exactly what improvements to put in.
> Other people need to send us lists of what they need, and they seem to
need
> to know about the tech tree before they can give us those lists. We asked
> for lists a while ago and haven't gotten them. If people know that we
have
> a completed tech tree structure that they can fit any item into, they will
> be more likely to send complete lists.

OK, we should put what we have though and what's been discussed in the
forums, esp from youngsun.

I was going to list a whole bunch of weapons/armor/equipment for use with
items, but rather than do that I'll attach the ness files from my AD&D core
rules CD. Everything in here (aside from the demihuman and magical stuff)
is historically accurate.

[Richard Bruns]

Do we really need to add 55 pages of role-playing equipment? That is probably a bit excessive, and the military model will not use all that. The problem with using RP equipment is that something that works for individual combat will not necessarily be good for a large scale army operation. For example, a fencer will defeat almost anyone else in hand to hand combat, but you never see an army equipped with foils because they are almost useless in melee combat. Also, a 15 foot pike or polearm is a horrible weapon for hand to hand combat, but a well trained group of pikemen is a formidable military force.
I suggest that we post the tree now with the examples we have so people can see how the thing works. Then we let the other model leaders tell us exactly what they need. There is not need to waste effort on something that might not be needed. I am pretty sure that the military model is focused on task forces and formations, not individual weapons.

[Richard Bruns]

Do we really need to add 55 pages of role-playing equipment? That
> is probably a bit excessive, and the military model will not use all that.
> The problem with using RP equipment is that something that works for
> individual combat will not necessarily be good for a large scale army
> operation. For example, a fencer will defeat almost anyone else in hand
to
> hand combat, but you never see an army equipped with foils because they
are
> almost useless in melee combat. Also, a 15 foot pike or polearm is a
> horrible weapon for hand to hand combat, but a well trained group of
pikemen
> is a formidable military force.
> I suggest that we post the tree now with the examples we have so
> people can see how the thing works. Then we let the other model leaders
> tell us exactly what they need. There is not need to waste effort on
> something that might not be needed. I am pretty sure that the military
> model is focused on task forces and formations, not individual weapons.

I also sent this so u could also put in the various differnt types of
weapons from differnt cultures also.

--- New Mail ---

Also can u send me a copy of what u have so far.

[Richard Bruns]

I also sent this so u could also put in the various differnt types of
weapons from differnt cultures also.
---
I don't think that this is our decision to make. We should let the otehr model leaders tell us what they need. We should communicate with them and ask them for input. The model itself might need to be revised, so we shouldn't put a lot of effort into something that might need to be changed.

--- New Mail ---

Also can u send me a copy of what u have so far.
---
Regarding what? What else was I supposed to be working on?

--- New Mail ---

I have been going through my archive of our e-mails to see about things we might have forgotten about. Here is what I found:

Effects List: I said that I would make a list of effects for the stuff in your old tech tree. I spent so much time concerning myself with remodeling the tree that I forgot about this. By now the old tree is obsolete, and so is the old assignment. Do you still want me do do something like that for the new application techs that will be generated by the model leaders, or is it their job to assign the effects for technologies they want?

Military Tech: Last year, I made a preliminary proposal for military technologies. This proposal seems to have been replaced by the new tech model I built. My military tech work at this point should be assigning the prerequisites for the units list that the military model people give us. Is that okay, or should we still look at my old proposal?

Cultural/Template Techs: We should probably finish the social tech model before working on this. I think that they can simply be treated as applications on the social tech tree, with the name and icon being changed based on the culture (artistic/religious preference) that the player chose at the beginning of the game. I think that we pretty much agreed on most aspects of this last year, and that our conclusions are still valid. So once the social model and social tech tree are finished, I should be able to put it right in.

--- New Mail ---

Here are some more things I noticed about the tech chart:

When you have a blue prerequisite with no number, what does that mean? Do you only need 1% in that tech?

Does Mechanics mean the branch of physics? If so, what represents the civ's ability to make machines?

Why would Geology help Metallurgy?

Ecology and Geology should be helper techs for Resource Gathering.
After all, knowledge of the planet helps you find things in it.

Can 'Masonry' be renamed 'Masonry and Cement'? That would make it clear what the tech is. Currently it is not obvious that Cement is in there.

Can 'Electronics' be changed to 'Electronic Applications' for precision? I want to distinguish theoretical techs from applied ones.

We probably need a tech that covers mapping, surveying, and naviagtion. We don't have anything that seems to cover that.

Stress control makes people healthier, so can we add psychology as a helper tech for Medicine?

I think that covers it. The chart will be ripped to shreds on the forum anyhow; people will probably see mistakes that we both missed. But these are the only remaining problems that I see. I would like to post this before Monday. I suggest that you respond to this message and then I put the thing up for public discussion. People, including Mark, really want to see this thing soon, with or without the applications. Anyway, I have dozens of application examples from our e-mails and I am currently preparing a post.

[Richard Bruns]

> I don't think that this is our decision to make. We should let the otehr
> model leaders tell us what they need. We should communicate with them and
> ask them for input. The model itself might need to be revised, so we
> shouldn't put a lot of effort into something that might need to be
changed.

Still don't delete what I sent u cuz it will help if they decide to use
anything in it

>> Also can u send me a copy of what u have so far.
> ---
> Regarding what? What else was I supposed to be working on?

Well I'd like to what application techs u have basically. Those should for
the most part be decided before we put out the new model (with the exception
of perhaps the social model)

> Effects List: I said that I would make a list of effects for the stuff in
> your old tech tree. I spent so much time concerning myself with
remodeling
> the tree that I forgot about this. By now the old tree is obsolete, and
so
> is the old assignment. Do you still want me do do something like that for
> the new application techs that will be generated by the model leaders, or
is
> it their job to assign the effects for technologies they want?

no just basically try to be a little more specific on what the basic techs
will do. Some of them are quite vauge.

> Military Tech: Last year, I made a preliminary proposal for military
> technologies. This proposal seems to have been replaced by the new tech
> model I built. My military tech work at this point should be assigning
the
> prerequisites for the units list that the military model people give us.
Is
> that okay, or should we still look at my old proposal?

Don't delete it. Send it to Harlique and see what he says about it as far
as if that's what they are looking for (along with some of the stuff I sent
u perhaps).

> Cultural/Template Techs: We should probably finish the social tech model
> before working on this. I think that they can simply be treated as
> applications on the social tech tree, with the name and icon being changed

> based on the culture (artistic/religious preference) that the player chose
> at the beginning of the game. I think that we pretty much agreed on most
> aspects of this last year, and that our conclusions are still valid. So
> once the social model and social tech tree are finished, I should be able
to
> put it right in.

Yes for the most part. I still think a few of them have to be culturally
aligned to particular societies. I'd like to include AMAP of the social
techs as possible. I might have gone a little crazy in religion/philosophy,
but I still think we need some advances that aren't unilateral, albeit
culturally suited, for all civs (my point with Chi).

> When you have a blue prerequisite with no number, what does that mean? Do
> you only need 1% in that tech?

On your scale, yes, on mine it would be 0% (ie simply enough to barely
understand it). I perfer mine because its not based on current level of
tech as apposed to when it started.

> Does Mechanics mean the branch of physics? If so, what represents the
civ's
> ability to make machines?

It represents the theoretical and applicatation of the mechanical side of
physics. I really don't see the need to seperate the two since adding
appropriate prereqs will solve the problem of machines.

> Why would Geology help Metallurgy?

First off I meant it to only help a little, and mostly in the beggining.
Wait now that I think about it, it really wouldn't help much at all worth
mentioning.

> Ecology and Geology should be helper techs for Resource Gathering.
> After all, knowledge of the planet helps you find things in it.

I thought I had geology on there, but ur right about ecology helping.

> Can 'Masonry' be renamed 'Masonry and Cement'? That would make it clear
> what the tech is. Currently it is not obvious that Cement is in there.

I don't think it needs to be because today they are still refered to as
masons and the term masonry is still used.

> Can 'Electronics' be changed to 'Electronic Applications' for precision?
I
> want to distinguish theoretical techs from applied ones.

That is kind redundant. Electronics is considered the application of
electromagnetics. But if u think it does need to be distinquished more then
use "Electical Applications"

> We probably need a tech that covers mapping, surveying, and naviagtion.
> We don't have anything that seems to cover that.

Those would be application techs and could easily fit into what we have w/o
making another basic tech.

> Stress control makes people healthier, so can we add psychology as a
helper
> tech for Medicine?

I thought u put it on there already in the upper part and I added it as a
helper, but not essential for lower levels because for most of "western"
history it wasn't seen that way.

> I think that covers it. The chart will be ripped to shreds on the forum
> anyhow; people will probably see mistakes that we both missed. But these
> are the only remaining problems that I see. I would like to post this
> before Monday. I suggest that you respond to this message and then I put
> the thing up for public discussion. People, including Mark, really want
to
> see this thing soon, with or without the applications. Anyway, I have
> dozens of application examples from our e-mails and I am currently
preparing
> a post.

OK, I just think we should use my "randomness" modifier because otherwise we
loose the ability for people to have non esential helpers for application
techs which would increase the likelyhood of them learning it sooner, as
well as the way I'd like to set up the "loss" of tech we discussed earlier.

[Richard Bruns]

Still don't delete what I sent u cuz it will help if they decide to use
anything in it
---
OK. I keep archives of almost everything anyway.
---
Well I'd like to what application techs u have basically. Those should for
the most part be decided before we put out the new model (with the exception
of perhaps the social model)
---
I have all of the applications that I have used as examples. There are several dozen of these, plenty to give people an idea of how the system works. And we should not be deciding applications. It is our job to supply what other people want, not to tell them what to use. Also, Mark specifically said on the forum that he wanted to see the model with or without a list of application.
---
no just basically try to be a little more specific on what the basic techs
will do. Some of them are quite vauge.
---
OK. I was planning to put that in the post, like I did when I sent it to you.
---
Don't delete it. Send it to Harlique and see what he says about it as far
as if that's what they are looking for (along with some of the stuff I sent
u perhaps).
---
Harliquin's e-mail is not given on the forum. I can't send stuff to him because I don't have his address. But I really think that the current model makes my old military model obsolete.
---
Yes for the most part. I still think a few of them have to be culturally
aligned to particular societies. I'd like to include AMAP of the social
techs as possible. I might have gone a little crazy in religion/philosophy,
but I still think we need some advances that aren't unilateral, albeit
culturally suited, for all civs (my point with Chi).
---
I will include in the post all of the social applications that I made. I will also have a full explanation of the template tech idea with examples.
---
It represents the theoretical and applicatation of the mechanical side of
physics. I really don't see the need to seperate the two since adding
appropriate prereqs will solve the problem of machines.
---
The ability to build engines and turbines is very different than the study of physics equations. Think of the difference between shop class and physics class. I definitely suggest adding a 'Machinery' basic tech. I will tentatively add it to the forum post, and we can discuss this on the forum while getting other people's input.
---
First off I meant [Geology] to only help a little, and mostly in the beggining.
Wait now that I think about it, it really wouldn't help much at all worth
mentioning.
---
OK
---
I thought I had geology on there, but ur right about ecology helping.
---
OK
---
I don't think it needs to be because today they are still refered to as
masons and the term masonry is still used.
---
I dodn't know that paving highways was known as masonry. Remember that I meant the tech to be used for building AND paving roads.
---
That is kind redundant. Electronics is considered the application of
electromagnetics. But if u think it does need to be distinquished more then
use "Electical Applications"
---
OK
---
Those would be application techs and could easily fit into what we have w/o
making another basic tech.
---
Can you think of good prerequisites for mapmaking or navigation? I can't. It is a different discipline than anything else, and it affects everything from ship navigation to troop movement and tactics to the ability to use land well. I will post it as an idea and let people know about your reservations. Then we can use their input to decide what to do.
To be fair, I will also post your Robotics and Cybernetics ideas to let people decide on those as well.
---
I thought u put it on there already in the upper part and I added it as a
helper, but not essential for lower levels because for most of "western"
history it wasn't seen that way.
---
I did put it in there, but when you sent me the tech list you left it out. And I think that it would help for all levels. Western cultures simply didn't have a high level of psychology, so it couldn't help them. Meanwhile, eastern cultures had a higher psychology level so they knew more about this and it helped them.
---
OK, I just think we should use my "randomness" modifier because otherwise we
loose the ability for people to have non esential helpers for application
techs which would increase the likelyhood of them learning it sooner, as
well as the way I'd like to set up the "loss" of tech we discussed earlier.
---
I fully agree with the tech loss system, and I made a differential equation that includes it. As for randomness, I think I have a compromise. Rather than simply being a computer generated random number that decides if you get the tech, there is an "inventor window" starting about 5% before the tech prerequisites. During that window, the computer checks social conditions to see if you have a society that encouraged invention. If you do, there is a large chance that the thing gets invented ahead of time. But if you have a repressive society, the thing will probably not get invented until you hit the prerequisite.
I don't see how randomness is required for helpers for application techs. But it is not a problem to assign other applications as helpers something.

From this point on, I would like to discuss things in the forum so other people know what is going on and can comment on it.

Next Technology Thread
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 27, 2000).]