Demo 5 Tech Tree

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Krenske:

I think the system can handle most of what you're looking for. It may be that we just need to put in several different application levels of musket before you get to rifle. My rule of thumb in the previous tech stuff that I have done is that if something is twice as good as its predecessor then it should be a technology (now called application). So in your case where you say there's a factor of 6-10 times, all we need is two or three technologies that were the most significant along that line, and allow each to improve by some amount, say by 50%-100% through use. (For example, it may be that the evolving version of the old technology is every bit as good as the new technology, but that the new one is significantly cheaper) How much a particular technology can achieve through evolution rather than revolution is something that I'm sure LGJ and Richard will rely on the main model guys to provide. So would you like to get together with Harli and flesh out your particular example a little bit, and we can see how it works in this proposed system?

Remember, you are extremely focused on the military area. One thing every 20 turns doesn't seem like much to manage. But there will be something like 50 basic technologies. Specifically handling each technological advancement in everything (and I believe they are mostly as dense the military ones) gives you something like two technologies per turn. I can see the player yawning already. Admittedly a lot of it will be handled more automatically than the military stuff. But still we're probably talking about one significant thing happening everyturner or to. And there will be a Lot more turns then in civ. by the way, your agriculture example missed whole areas of improvements in agricultural techniques such as several different levels of crop rotation schemes, new plant species like the potato that revolutionized agriculture in parts of the world, etc.

Jumps in improvements still happen in the system when an application is discovered that makes old ones obsolete! There will be a lot more big jumps then there are in civ. There probably just won't be as many jumps as you would ideally like. Perhaps if the system runs on automatic very well we could even accommodate the density of technology change that you have in mind. But only the people who are really into this stuff will care. For everyone else a list of 15 things in one particular area that happen over a few hundred turns will all blur together IMO.

[Richard Bruns]

There is a lot of stuff to reply to and I don't have much time, so I'll be posting a few times over the course of the day.

Social Acceptance:

As I stated in the original post, getting an application does not automatically mean you can use it. Getting an application means that you have the technical knowledge of how it works. If your people don't like it, you will have to abandon the idea or try to force it on them. This is possible, but you will have to deal with dissent.

Consider Stalin and Peter 'the Great.' Each of them made it their goal to modernize Russia, imposing new technologies on an unwilling people. They had to fight a lot of internal dissent, but they did it. The player should have the same ability, unless they are running a democratic form of government. Of course there will be penalties to forcing techs on people, but if you have the police and army to force people to work in a factory or use a modern device, you can do it.

Application Percentages:

100% is the percentage at which you know enough to make the minimum level of something. The Wright Brothers were at 100% in 1903, and a WW1 plane would be about 250% Anything less than 100% means you can use it but not make it. So it is reasonable for inventors to start at 100%.

[Mark_Everson]

Richard and LGJ:

What specifically in your system(s) causes a large number of innovative societies with tech diffusion among them to proceed much more rapidly than a single isolated society of the same type? Is it trading of levels of basic tech back and forth, feedback between applications and the basic techs, or what?

sorry, gotta run, but I had to get that question out since its a biggie

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

Thanks for the quick answer. I agree with your general statements on where RPs come from, but not with the specifics. Although it may be a model that is too complicated, I prefer one where both basic techs and applications can diffuse to some extent. Here's my reasoning... say I am playing a culture like the Minoans that has a heavy focus on merchant activity. Because of my culture my basic technologies will be skewed in the direction of things that help our merchants, like commerce, communications technologies, and naval transport in this case. Let's say all the cultures around me are more interested in land military technology. I think that what I should be able to absorb from the neighbors should relate in some way to what they Actually Have Achieved beyond me, rather than simply letting me use generic RPs to further the things I am traditionally good at. Obviously this isn't completely true, but at least for a fraction of the RPs I shouldn't get a choice as to where they go. Those RPs should automatically go into things like land military technology. In general, copying the breakthroughs that my neighbors have had has been historically much easier than generating new breakthroughs of my own. What do you think?

Richard and LGJ:

I agree that the difference between the two methods for when an application is attained was largely semantic. However, I think that having both a "minimum competence level" and a "guaranteed knowledge level" is vast overkill . Let me propose a simplifying assumption, and then you can both shoot at me... For each technology there are a list of helper techs, and each one has a strength and level associated with it. So a prerequisite might be Agriculture 45% (2x). The 45% is simply the average between the minimum competence level and the guaranteed knowledge level. So suppose this were the only prerequisite. As we get close to 45% the "inventor window" would open, and we would get a chance to attain the technology. 45% would be the trip point above which it would become increasingly likely that we would get it. I haven't defined the ranges where the "inventor window" turns on and where the Tech is automatically achieved, because I think they should depend on the strength of the prerequisite(s). I'll leave the math for another time, but essentially missing a high leverage helper technology would result in a much later opening of the inventor window than missing a less important helper technology by the same percentage. In this way, exactly how much a helper technology is important plays a role in defining when you are likely to get it. Essentially, I am using the strength of the prerequisite to determine the spread between your minimum competence level and guaranteed knowledge level.

[Richard Bruns]

Application Density:

One problem with creating a tech tree is that everyone has a favorite topic and field of study and wants to include as much as possible of that topic. Krenske likes and knows a lot about military technology, so he would like to see a tree with 100 military advances throughout history and maybe a dozen farming advances. LGJ likes and knows about martial arts and oriental culture, so his original tree had about a dozen cultural tcehnologies regarding these things and maybe six for other cultures combined.

This is not a result of conscious discrimination; it is a natural result of including what we know most about. I have tried to avoid this problem, and have been partially sucessful because I have a broad but not deep knowledge of almost all scientific and technological fields as well as a good understanding of history. I don't know a lot about any of them, but my knowledge is such that I treat them almost equally.

Of course, I know next to nothing about culture and arts, so my tree is woefully deficient in those fields. I didn't include many social techs for the simple reason that I don't know about them. Almost all cultural stuff I have is gleaned off the knowledge of others.

The end result is that I have a tree that satisfies almost everybody yet pleases nobody. Everyone has something they know about and like that I either left out or oversimplified. I know that I have done this. I know that many aspects of my model are imprecise and too simple. I had to do this. We are trying to put the entire cultural, scientific, and technical knowledge of the human race into a realistic game that will be fun to play. That demands sacrifices and simplification.

If we included enough detail in every field to please everyone who was really interested in that topic, we would have thousands and thousands of techs. Everyone would get sick of reading boring details of dozens of topics they didn't care about. The detail of the one topic they like would be lost in the midst of what they consider junk.

I am asking that everyone agree to losing their favorite details in exchange for a streamlined tree that will be fun for everyone. Try to see the big picture, and please correct me if I get too detailed on something. After all, I can't see my mistakes and preferences any more than you can see yours.

Okay, that probably read like a sermon. Sorry. My point is that, in a dispute, we should probably err on the side of simplicity. People will notice boring details and busywork more than they will notice omissions.

[Richard Bruns]

Mark:

I like your plan to have helper techs determine the inventor window. But remember that 10% is double of half the knowledge, so the range should not extend much beyond 5%. Otherwise you have a situation where it is possible to invent something with only half the knowledge you should have to be able make that thing.

All:

I propose that only the Guaranteed Knowledge Level be listed in the documentation. That way a player knows exactly when something will definitely be available. People like to plan ahead, so they should have a concrete place to aim for.

It is also a matter of psychology. If people see a number listed beside something, they will expect to get it at that number. It does not matter what you say in the documentation; they won't read that until after they play a few games. They might never read it in detail. So, if they get an application after the number listed, they feel that they have been denied something. But if they get an application before the number given, they feel that they have been given a gift. This might not even enter their conscious minds, but it will influence their perception of the game. For this reason, I steadfastly believe that any randomness should give and not take away.

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

Agree that inventor windows should always be small. They should be fairly small anyway...

On the Guaranteed Knowledge Level. I agree with your psychological arguments. But... How about we set the GKL that appears in the manual to Always be 5% (or some constant) above the average number for each helper tech that I described above. You will frequently get the tech before you hit the GKL IMO. But if you don't get it by then, you will recieve it when all the helper techs reach GKL.

Can everyone be happy with that compromise? It is more realistic in the flexibility of the 'inventor window' and yet has the good psychological aspects Richard is pushing for.

[Richard Bruns]

I anticipated that a player with a non-regressive society would usually get things before the Guaranteed Knowledge Level. THat tells them that they have a good society, assuming that they do.

I do have a slight concern with your proposal, however:
---
Mark Everson:
As we get close to 45% the "inventor window" would open, and we would get a chance to attain the technology.
---
How close do you mean? If you set the GKL at 50% for this you might have someone get lucky and get the thing at 40%, which is half the knowledge that they 'should' have before they get the thing. In this case, I would set the GKL at 48% and the Minimum Competence level at 42%. Three percent from the average seems to be a reasonable range.

BTW, is it okay for me to post those e-mails? Also, I wanted to post the revised tech chart at the top of a new page in this thread. How do I do that?

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

+-3% should be fine. Its just a first shot at it anyway...

On the emails, sure post them if you want. It is complicated posting long things because the text box will only hold so much. I would put them in a new separate thread too, since they would really clot this one up IMO

To change the tech list just edit your initial post. Hit the little pencil and paper edit icon at the top of that post. You can also use edit to look at the codes in someone elses posts so you can know the format for quotes and such.

On your point above about the Wright bros. plane being 100%... I think you made My point instead. Specifically, although a great achievement, that plane had Zero, Zip, Nada, practical usefulness. It required many years before planes were useful for anything but the adventure of it! It is exactly this sort of thing that I'd call an 'early' invention with about (charitably) 10% effectiveness of the basic early plane. I would take the basic early plane to be an early WWI plane personally. What 'early invention' should do in your system is allow for building the thing and starting to get experience with it. Government funding of early planes was IIRC one of the main stimuli in getting real aviation off the ground so to speak.

[Richard Bruns]

Mark: You are right about the scaling of applications. LGJ and I agreed to the 100%, so I used that, but starting at 10% would make more sense. That way 100% can be the best possible, and anything less than 10% is application loss.

I suppose it would be okay to set a minimum percentage of RP allocation to an individual basic technology. That would simulate tech diffusion of a certain type, as well as the people's inventiveness that is not controlled by you. However, I don't think a maximum would be good, except of course for 100% of RP's minus the minimums. Leaders should be able to turn the majority of their resources to a single immediate goal, like the United States did in World War 2.

I don't want to just edit the original post. That way anyone reading this thread will be really confused about the discussion. I would like the version 5.1 tech system to start a new page, so this page is version 5.0 and the discussion of it.

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

IMO cutting it off at 100% is not necc. good. 100% should IMO just represent a reasonably useful implementation, but one that can be improved upon. Above 100% the thing could still be improved, but would be in a regieme of diminishing returns. What you really need past 100% is the next breakthrough (application). But if you don't have it your biplane can still be refined (maybe asymptotically approaching 130 or 150%). However, it will still be just a Very good biplane, rather than a WWII plane. Anything that is down to 10% effectiveness is probably not cost effective to build regardless, since an older technology (balloon maybe) will generally be more cost effective. Anyway that's my take on it.

RPs:
The way I have been thinking about it is that RPs from diffusion and social features are Free to the player, but the player has no direct control over them. They are spent automatically. What the player can do is put Money anywhere to show the interest and power of the civ ruling elite is behind this particular type of improvement. So the player may pick Agriculture to receive a boost just by putting cash on it. Cash can buy RPs that can go anywhere.

However for Cash RPs there should be an inertial term that LGJ and I have talked about before. Running from one area to another won't give the same benefit as supporting something year after year. I'm sure we can come up with an easy mechanism to simulate this if you guys agree.

Otherwise players that don't give a damn about research will have to allocate points, or at least designate an advisor to do so. This way, if you're not interested in pushing tech forward you just let your people do it for you (which was generally true for much of history anyway).

Well, that's my take on it, whatcha think?

[Richard Bruns]

Mark:

I think your plan for application percentages is fine. One question: At what percentage does a new technology get as good and cost effectife as 100% of an old technology?

Your RP allocation idea seems remarkably similar to the "inventor" idea I posted last year. It has people developing things automatically, with the government only supporting basic research. The irony of this is that I have come full circle and now consider my original idea to be bad for gameplay. It would be good for the player to control at least some of the natural RP pool. I would suggest that about half of the stuff is assigned automatically, with the player controlling the other half. The cash RP's are an addition to this basic RP pool.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Wow! I'm gone for less than a day and look at all the discussion! Anyway I will try to reply to everything I remember.

Manual Idea is okay for listing them in the middle, with a note that it isn't the middle.

One thing u'll have to figure out is not only how helper techs will affect this but also how social conditions will also.

Also how will the decay of techs work below minimum competence level and for how long will it be useful?

RichWhen u decide to repost the updated model, also post what u have on social aspects as well as fine arts.

RPs & Money: Also there should be a point at which no matter how much more money u put in, u won't get anything more in return. For the most part this could be a diminishing returns graph, but it would have to have a max out point because there is only so much that can be done in one turn even with all resources at ur disposal.

[Mark_Everson]

To

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-01-2000 07:42 PM I think your plan for application percentages is fine. One question: At what percentage does a new technology get as good and cost effectife as 100% of an old technology? .

Well, if we use as a rule of thumb that each succeeding technology is twice as good as its predecessor, the new technology will overpower the old at about 50% give or take a bit. If we make the inventor function right it wouldn't happen very often that something was invented before 50% effectiveness. Perhaps if that data happen we could give an arbitrary bonus that would bring it up to that level.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-01-2000 07:42 PM Your RP allocation idea seems remarkably similar to the "inventor" idea I posted last year. It has people developing things automatically, with the government only supporting basic research. The irony of this is that I have come full circle and now consider my original idea to be bad for gameplay. It would be good for the player to control at least some of the natural RP pool. I would suggest that about half of the stuff is assigned automatically, with the player controlling the other half. The cash RP's are an addition to this basic RP pool.

LOL on you having come full circle! I think 50% is a reasonable place to compromise. In the coating we should just leave it as a variable, and then players could select it as a more historical setting, or higher control setting. I'd meant to have a bunch of "historical accuracy level" sliders anyway.

By the way, what's with your equation? The letter a and b are redundant. Is the b term supposed to have parentheses around it?

Another unrelated note. There is a FAQ for the bulletin board that you can find if you go to the main Apolyton Page. There may even be a link from the top of the forum, I just can't remember.

LGJ: Sounds Good. Agree on everything.

I need to carp on the list of basic techs now, but I'm not up to it tonight.

Great Job!

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 01, 2000).]

[Krenske]

Mark

Nooo !!!
I've been misunderstood.

With my example of farming improvements I only listed direct farming improvements. Crop rotation and various irrigation techniques etc I see as belonging to other basic techs. Crop rotation belongs with environmental understanding. Irrigation techniques are basically engineering applications, rather than directly farming. I actually see them quite differently as irrigation was not used much until fairly recently in western cultured areas while advanced plow techniques existed. There is a basic interplay here between several technological areas. All of which have agricultural benefits but they are not directly related in any way. (We could even look at tribal slash and burn as crop rotation, while the tribes have no concept of irrigation or plowing.)

I am, I agree obsessed with military technology. I do though understand many of the technological progressions over time.
For example I give printing. Printing would have a basic requirement of paper and writing. You would start with Woodblock, then proceed to moveable type, Metal type, Printing press, lithography, Iron press, mechanised press. This takes us through to 1860 odd from there we have a couple of new processes but they mostly have to do with scale and electronics. I'm not sure they actually belong just within printing. Now anyway I can see where the amalgamation of several of these is possible (moveable and metal type, iron press and mechanised press) We still have at least 5 applications of printing tech throughout the middle ages to the industrial age. Each of which was a great improvement over the last.

By the way even within my list of firearm improvements several are not directly firearm improvements. Cast bullets is actually an outgrowth of casting technology not firearms, while several also depend on chemical advances and metalworking advances.

As to new crops that really comes under domestication technologies or inter civ interactions. The potato can not be developed it has to be found and domesticated. Once domestication is learnt all available food types in the cvis area will be domesticated at some point. Specific new foods introduced to the area would have to have a natural benefit. (EG. Potato does not require heavy tilling therefore it is growable in steeper areas etc. It effectively opens up an extra 10% of an hilly square to agriculture. )