Demo 5 Tech Tree

[Richard Bruns]

Let me dig up something I proposed a while ago in several e-mails:
---
I think that one of your concerns with my model is that it is not specific enough about applications. And you do have a good point. I have an idea that might address your concerns without much more complexity.

We add a few "Application Techs." These are not part of the tree and are completely independent of other techs. They might even use a different RP pool. These Application Techs deal with the way that the basic techs are used. For example, consider Military Applications. This tech is required to build military items. If you don't research it, you don't get military applications even if you have the proper percentage of the basic tech. All applications get a new prerequisite, such as:
Crossbow: Mechanical Engineering *25%, Military Applications 30%
Musket: Chemistry *30%, Metalworking *30%, Military Applications 40%
If you don't go for miltary applications, you can research more civilian applications and improve your economy, like the Chinese did. They never got guns because they didn't focus on military applications like the Europeans did.
---
My idea would allow the player themselves to set the cultural standards. If they don't care about economic or civilian applications and need a way to fend off a horde of barbarians, then they can put a lot into Military Applications. This way they get what they need.

I think it wouldn't be too complex to give everything a tech prerequisite and an applications prerequisite. That way the thing comes when there is both technological ability and need, as defined by player priorities.
---
My idea was to have that level of [cultural] usefulness be represented by a value; the level of your Application techs. These techs determine your ability to use what you found by being a prerequisite for things. Your ability to research application techs would be influenced by the wishes of your people, so if they didn't want war it would be harder to research Military Applications.
---
What do you think? Perhaps we can fix things so that the basic tech requirements will be obtained come before the application tech requirements. That way the player's decisions about applications techs determine the applications they get at a certain time in the game. If we do this, the player can have more control over application techs and less control over basic techs.

Comments?

Application Percentages: I suggest we ditch them. Loss and improvement can both be handled without them.

Inventors: Mark's idea of simply giving a bonus for invention would work, but how would you be able to analyze the relative strength of units or the relative ability of civs? Comparing basic techs woult not give an accurate comparison in this case. YOu would have to chack every application individually. I would suggest that inventing something simply allows you to get it earlier. From then on, its effectiveness is determined by basic techs only, with no seperate percentage for applications.

Mark: The fuss in my post was a listing of the problems associated with application percentages as we were defining them. Read it again and consider how complex and confusing it would be to the player who is not familiar with our discussion. The system is amazingly complex and gives little benefit to anything. I was hoping that I could sign the death warrant of application percentages.

Future Techs: I was considering Far Future (anything after 2050) to be something like a modpack that your game data goes into instantly. I actually suggested a while ago that it have a different tech chart. So it wouldn't bother me if we let LGJ do whatever he wants there.

Individual Techs

I suppose we could have the two techs:
Mechanical Engineering and Classical Physics
Electromagnetic Theory and Applications

Indistrial Engineering and Managemant are basically the same thing. They are both ways of improving the efficiency of any industrial process. The Government tech can take any public sector application of Management.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 02, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

Your Military Applications tech does pretty much exactly the same thing as my Weapons basic techs did. Why exactly is that you want to define a whole new technology type? If it serves the same function as a basic technology, why do we need something different? About the only difference I can perceive, is that military applications should also get bonuses for what is learned when they are actually used in battle. But that's quite analogous to the bonuses we were giving applications when you make things.

Application percentages...
I agree with you that this might be confusing for gameplay. That's a quite legitimate reason to try and get rid of it. But I think by far the biggest confusion for the player will be in the changing effectiveness of things. To my mind, if we are going to go ahead and change the effectiveness, then we might as well do the application percentages. If the changing effectiveness is to confusing to the player, we also could have it "lock in" at just a few values. So at 50% its arquebus, at 100% its a flintlock, etc. Although the game late keep track of the level continuously, the effectiveness would only change when you get to the next "level".

On your criticism of not being able to exactly compare civilizations capabilities, I think that's a good thing! The surgical precision with which one can gauge the power of forces in most of these games is ridiculous. Until you have fought them, you should have no particularly good idea how effective they are going to be. War is a risky thing, and it should be in Clash also IMO.

I think the equations are complicated, but just telling the player that you get credit in terms of effectiveness the more of a particular item you build is pure simplicity. If an inventor does it early, you have gotten a good deal. What more exactly does the player need to know?

All your new proposed Physics is make the issue more opaque IMO. Now you have no place to put atomic physics tie-ins, because your categories are explicitly classical physics, and electromagnetics. I really don't think there's that big in issue in the transition from classical physics to modern physics. Your artillery should stop improving significantly due to knowledge of ballistics long before you ever get to modern physics. You can't invent an atom bomb with physics at 50% anyway! But I'm tired of arguing about it, so if you really think there Must be two flavors of physics, when there is one Chemistry and one Biology then go for it...

[Krenske]

So our basic techs are listed generally above by Mark. Now within each of these there will be various applications at certain levels.

So does that mean at military 45% / chemistry 40% gunpowder weapons become available. Then at 46% musket, then at 47% muzzle rifles, etc. If so then I can see the military techs filling in very rapidly with applications.
Could we not use a three tiered system. With the basic techs, then more general techs and finally the applications. In fact the general techs could lead on to other general techs.
Let me give an example.
At military 45% / chemistry 40% (?) we get the possibility of developing the general tech of Gunpowder. Gunpowder is a prerequisite for the following general techs. Once gunpowder is learnt then we have a further set of general techs - Rockets, Firearms, Explosives and Artillery. Once we research these we get access to the most basic application in that tech area. We then have a chance of developing further applications (with a modifier based on the general techs level)

So we would have areas of general research in the basic techs. We would also have the ability to direct some additional effort into the general techs we know in an attempt to speed up follow on techs and applications.

It would work as a selection of application tech trees linked to a general tech that is discovered because of the basic techs. A example from agriculture follows.
Basic tech - Agriculture
General techs - Cropping, Herding.
Under Cropping- is ploughing, irrigation, horticulture(orchards) and crop theory.
Under the ploughing general tech we will have the actual applications - simple plough, animal drawn plough, seed drill, metal plough, mouldboard plough, and other important land and cropworking applications arranged as a tree.

This means that a civ that ignores a general tech area will not learn enough to start developing applications. Therefore we get the Masai who largely ignore anything to do with cropping but herd fairly well. We also get the Egyptians who crop well but stop herding research soon after basic domestication.

This is a workable means of handling the way related applications seem to come into existence in a tree like way. While other entire tree areas can be ignored.

Once a general tech is researched the player could even be given the ongoing research options for that tech. (The options of ignore, maintain and forge ahead come to mind.) Depending on which option is selected a portion of the overall research budget could go into that specific area. (by research budget I mean the generated RP's)

Obvious general tech trees include
Gunpowder - firearms, artillery, explosives and rockets.
Boats - Sailing, Rowing, Small hull. small hull would then lead onto various applications and larger hulls.


The actual level of the basic techs would be used as a modifier in researching further general techs and applications.


As a follow up to marks list I see The military breakdown as being weapons, tactics and defences. As opposed to short, medium and long range.

[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 02, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 02, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ:
---
Manual Idea is okay for listing them in the middle, with a note that it isn't the middle.
---
List them in the middle? That would allow someone to get a tech after the listed number, which, as I have explained, would be bad.
---
One thing u'll have to figure out is not only how helper techs will affect this but also how social conditions will also.
---
I think that my original inventor idea could be revived for this. I included social conditions as a big part of that. If your people don't want sonething, they don't invent it and you don't get it until the Guaranteed Knowledge Level.

By the way, inventors will make a big difference even if they only invent things with the tech 3% lower. If an application has three prerequisites, that is nine percentage points you don't have to spend to get the thing. I would estimate that it would take at least 30 game turns to get those nine percentage points in the basic tech. That's a lot, especially in a competitive situation.

I suggest that the Guaranteed Knowledge Level is listed in the manual and that the Minimum Competence level, and thus the inventor window, start 5% lower. There should be a small chance of invention until you get to within about 2% of the GKL.
---
Also how will the decay of techs work below minimum competence level and for how long will it be useful?
---
The tech decay system is basically the same as we agreed on. The only change is that the civ gets a "grace period" of 5% below GKL before the tech starts to decay.
---
RichWhen u decide to repost the updated model, also post what u have on social aspects as well as fine arts.
---
I don't have much regarding this; I will put it all in there. I never really intended to work on social stuff.
---
RPs & Money: I agree. In Civ 2 , it wass ridiculus that you could build the Cure for Cancer in one turn.

Krenske:
You are mistaken about a few details:
---
We have Basic technologies representing theoretical knowledge and experience.
---
Basic techs are more than theories. They also include plans, testing, blueprints, and the R&D for many different possible applications.
---
At certain points new basic technologies will come into being. (EG. Airship comes out of Balloon(is that two specific), Animal drawn vehicle comes out of domestication, etc)
---
Not really. There will be few new Basic Technologies. They are usually fields of study that have existed throughout history, like Biology and Mechanical Engineering. Everything you mentioned, except Domestication, is an application.
---
These techs will be listed as a percentage, with 100 being total understanding.
---
100% of a basic tech is the highest publically known level of the technology as of January 1, 2000. So if you go past 2000 you will go above 100%.
---
Applications are the "manifestation" of the theory. At certain basic tech levels (vital techs) a new application can come into being. (Not immeadiately guaranteed, I like the inventor window idea)
---
This is essentially correct, but don't forget that some applications, like a Nuclear Power Plant, will need a certain level of many basic techs.

Mark:

You are right about the equation. I missed that. It should be
dP=(RP-a((bP)^n))(c/(eP)^m)

All:

I think that the double rule for applications may have to be reconsidered, especially for military applications. In this century, the power of most military hardware has doubled about every ten years. That is too many techs. I would suggest the following progression:

After invention, the application is at 5%.
When the tech reaches 10%, it is considered to be minimally practical. I would suggest that the player not be notified until this point.
When it reaches 20%, it is practical and useful. It replaces the old technology.
From 20% to 100%, it increases in a linear fashion. (Actually, we could change this to be exponential, say every 20% is a doubling of ability. What does everyone think?)
100% is the point of diminishing returns. At this point, you should be getting a new application.

This progression would result in a reasonable number of technologies. If we want to invest the effort, we could put a different description on every 20% increase. So Musket 40%-60% is Matchlock and 60%-80% is Wheellock. The player would have the option of turning these descriptions on or off to suit their tastes. Either way, it requires zero extra management.

[F_Smith]

Whew!

Much discussion here.

I'll try to be brief:

I would like to reiterate that I think this system is indeed playable. But personally, I still don't think it models tech advancement.

1) Gunpowder was invented long before anyone had any concept of such a thing as 'chemical theory'.

Your 'basic techs' actually seem to be 'theories'. And most discoveries thru history were made thru blind trial and error, not on the basis of a good theory that was then well tested. Only when your theories begin to approach reality (as we have begun to do in the last few centuries) are those theories any use. And even then, those theories can actually hold you back because of the inevitable inaccuracies. Who would have theorized that moldy cheese could produce a powerful medicine? It is actually the accidental discoveries that drive the theories -- not the other way around.

2) Skilled ironsmiths could be less likely to develop steel technology than green ironsmiths.

Skilled ironsmiths would be focused on the purity of their iron, and be very skilled at doing things the same way every time. Newbies with creative skill might would be more likely to 'experiment' with new ways of making iron -- or 'accidentally' mix 'impure' iron that turns out to be stronger. An inexperienced but creative civ might advance in techs faster than an uncreative but experienced civ. So I would not tie 'skill' at a single tech with advancement to new techs. I believe that makes an unrealistic model. It is often the person that throws out all basic assumptions (ya'lls 'tech') that makes the great breakthru. And many people spend their lives trying to prove pieces of theories that turn out to be totally bogus. In the middle ages, their chemistry 'tech' predicted that lead could be transmuted into gold . . .

3) Because key techs will be a major game goal, this system seems much more complicated than a 'tech tree', in practice.

I've never had any difficulty in using any tech trees -- civ 2, smac, moo2, warcraft/wc2, aoe/ror/aok, starcraft, etc. They always seem very playable (even smac, where the techs are futuristic), and indeed were the only strength of some of these games (moo2!!!). This system here, however, seems highly complicated during gameplay, at least to me. I suggest someone puts together a simplistic demo and tries it. Because the way it will play, players will *need* to memorize the tech 'trees' for each 'discipline' and all the required advancement %s. Because in gameplay, quickly reaching certain techs will be absolutely necessary for success. So you will have to learn how to achieve those. Simply blindly researching in 'catagories' of techs will not lead you to firearms as fast as someone that has memorized and maximized. And memorizing that I need gunpowder, clockworking technology and skilled ironsmiths for for a wheel-lock musket is far easier than memorizing "metalworking 70%, Toolmaking 65%, Chemistry 50%". At least to me. Because if ya'll do your jobs right (and I know you will), the tech 'tree' is basically intuitive, since it will be based upon reality -- and indeed can teach you a bit about the tech that you can take with you, away from the game. Memorizing actual technical components of a discovery is far less difficult -- and more entertaining/rewarding -- than memorizing some game-specific percentages.

At least to me. But I like very specific things, and not everyone shares my feelings.

Or had you noticed?

4) Finally, atmosphere. Numbers are not interesting. Real things are.

Seven Kingdoms had a system reminiscent of this one, in a small way. Each unit gained a seperate ranged/special attack when they reached some % of experience. Warriors could become crossbowmen, when they hit 80% training. That sort of thing. I see this as similar. And it was just not anywhere near as fun as assigning a troop crossbows specifically. Just a personal preference, but I far prefer techs with names and non-numbers based effects.

[F_Smith]

I think I failed to be brief!!!

Ooops.

[Lord God Jinnai]

I still think we should have robotics as a near-future basic tech since there have been many breakthrus in the last few years. I've decided to drop cybernetics and tie it in as a application tech of robotics and biology.

Anyway a while ago Rich asked if there was anything major other than factory robots that would use that system today. Well there isn't for today but within that 2050 mark there will be. FE cybernetic limbs for replacement parts. This is actually closer than u might think. They are almost ready to have these used commerically, just a few bugs to work out. Prob within a couple of years. Lets see... Robotics is often used in space currently. Underwater for deep submersian vehicles. They are also used in exploring mars. There are prob many more but that's enough for now.

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Richard:

"You make it sound like someone could put everything into weapons
techs and get loads of weapons automatically. They could research
weapons to the exclusion of all else and conquer the planet. "

I hope you know me well enough by now to not think I would suggest such a silly thing. Applications like bows and rifles would still have other basic techs that they depend on. The proposed Weapons basic techs would also have other helper techs. Metallurgy, Materials Techs, and Mechanical Engineering all come to mind as obvious possibilities for requisites for both individual applications and as helpers for a Weapons basic tech. A Weapons Basic Tech (or Applications Tech per your def.) would also be a helper tech for other technical areas that have been historically accelerated by weapons developments of various sorts.

I am saying that if we do it right the Weapons basic tech will be like Agriculture. If you want to favor agricultural development, as I read your system, its is easy to put resources into it and its helper techs and get most of what you want, at least short-term. Similarly in the weapons area you could put your money on it and we would (at player option) have a simple algorithm that would spread out those dedicated RPs into the helper techs, and even possibly Their helper techs. It just means that if you want to emphasize weapons above all else then you can. Of course really you probably need Tactics, Logistics, and other military stuff (and social setup too) or all your shiny weapons won't do you a damn bit of good. To do a Really good job, one would have to understand the detailed interactions between the basic techs. My idea here is for a player that wants a short-term good solution. For instance if the barbarians show up, Tactics and Logistics are already good, and you just want to get a better tech set of weapons available Soon.

Example of how to handle a Basic tech the player selects:
(not meant to be taken really seriously, just for demo, I would not suggest a single Weapons tech)

This is also just generic ancient weapons, when gunpowder weapons come along you would move into a different set of helper techs.

Weapons Basic Tech symbolizes the work and experimentation by weaponsmiths etc.
Weapons has helper techs:
Metallurgy (2x), Materials Techs(1x), and Mechanical Engineering(1/2x)
[2x is a more important helper... ]

Applications:
Longsword: Weapons 20%; Metallurgy 25%

Crossbow: Weapons 25%; Mechanical Engineering 20%, Metallurgy 25%

So suppose I am a player that is at:
Weapons 18%
Metallurgy 20%
Materials 25%
and Mechanical Engineering(23%)

I, the player put heavy emphasis on weapons, expected to be X RPs over each of the forseeable turns.

The algorithm for distributing this pot (TBD! this is just a crude shot at it) might be to put from X:
40% into Weapons itself
40% distributed among its helper techs
(distribution method TBD but since Metallurgy is 2x and behind it would get most)
20% to techs so as to achieve applications within "reach" that are within Weapons track
(say with an inventor window no more than a TBD amt away.)

I have to get back to work, but that's the general idea.

[Richard Bruns]

Mark:

Your plan/algorithm for speeding up weapons research is good. It is so good that there is no need for a Weapons basic technology. The algorthm would simply research the required basic techs and the applications would appear. No research into some "Weapons" tech is required.

Your system would actually make the player spend more RP's to get a weapon tcehnology. While I would give the weapon application with the basic tech, you force the player to pour scarce RP's into an additional technology. They would then be getting weapons more slowly than they would under the system I proposed.

I imagined that there would be some advisor that told players what to research to get a specific applciation. So if you don't feel like looking in the manual and working the tree yourself, you could give the advisor a goal and it would use an algorithm to spend RP's so as to get that application as soon as possible.

LGJ:

The same objections to Robotics still apply. It is not really a basic field of knowledge. Would you say that it deserves the same kind of treatment as Biology? It is basically a string of applications. All of the basic theories regarding robotics will be a part of the Computers and Mechanical Engineering technologies. Of course, this can be resolved if we alter the tree structure as Krenske proposed . . .

Krenske:

Your idea is intriguing. I like it. Different levels of technology would allow for a more structured tree with clear tech differentiations. It could also be great for compromises.

All:

As I see it, Krenske proposes four levels to the tech tree:

Level 1 is the most basic theoretical field of study. It would be things like Physics or Biology.

Level 2 techs are subcategories of Level 1 studies and are starting to get more practical. Examples of Level 2 techs would be Mechanics, Electromagnetics, Anatomy, and Ecology.

Level 3 techs are combinations of practical applications. They would be things like Robotics, Cybernetics, Computers, Optics and Shipbuilding.

Level 4 things are applications. They may or may not have percentages attached to them.

My original tech tree included Level 1 and 2 techs, with a few Level 3 things thrown in. LGJ and I spent quite a while debating which Level 2 and 3 techs were important enough to be put in the tree. None of us considered the possibility of stratifying the tree; we considered all techs to be equal.

Then Mark saw our list and decided to rip out everything he saw as junk. He rightly saw that we were giving equal consideration to many different levels of study. He was thinking that only Level 1 techs were important enough to be included. His tech tree was very appealing, as it was simple enough to understand very quickly. Yet it was perhaps too simple in some places, with ballistics and magnets in only one tech.

Krenske's stratification idea would allow us to deal with any of these problems. Mark's list, with a few changes, would be good as the Level 1 tech list. The things he cut out of the tree would be assigned places among Level 2 techs. Application oriented fields of study like Robotics would be level 3 techs.

Usually, this would be a simple hierarchical structure, with a Level 1 tech containing Level 2 techs, which contain Level 3 techs. But some applications cross many fields of study. They would rely on Level 2 techs in different level 1 groups.

Also, some applications would have to rely on different Level 2 techs as time progressed. For Example, Shipbuilding would rely on Woodworking at the beginning, but later it would rely on Metallurgy and in the future it would rely on Synthetics. All of these Level 2 techs would be under the Materials Technology Level 1 tech.

All techs would still have Helper and Vital techs. Vital techs are the ones above them, and helper techs are in different categories. So Metallurgy has Materials Technology as a Vital Tech and Chemistry as a Helper Tech.

In this system, applications would depend on on Level 3 techs. The level of the Level 3 tech(s) would determine the effectiveness of the application.

I think this stratified tech system has a lot of promise. It could resolve many debates. For example, we could turn Mark's Weapon techs into Level 3 techs. I would have no problem with them in that context. We should also be able to easily differentiate the different branches of Physics as Level 2 techs.

Also, this would help the application percentage problem. The Level 3 tech could serve as the application percentage for the individual items or units. The Level 3 techs are so directly related to practical matters that it is easy and realistic to assume that your Ship Building technology determines how good your ships are.

This should be good. I will make a complete proposal around it and post it as Tech Tree Version 5.1 Thank you for the input and idea, Krenske.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Mark_Everson]

It does look very intriguing. I dismissed Krenske's idea out of hand as way too complicated. (sorry Krenske!) I hope it works out. Good Luck with it!

I propose you just take one level-1 tech to start and just sketch out its branches. Otherwise you may go thru a lot of effort just to find there's some innate flaw in the idea.

So, just to make sure I've got it... I take it that Every direct practical profession is in level 3, and level 4 is just single applications themselves? So long as there is a single level at which the player can point and say 'gimme more of That' I think the players will like it and the AI will be able to handle it. Please try really hard to have something more like 50 techs at level 3 rather than 200!

Great job!

[Krenske]

Richard,

I have had a good think about the military techs and I agree with you that they are not truly basic research techs, they are really general or intermediate techs. (Currently they are more like, sets of like applications that may not be related at all.)

By the way could we use some standardised terms. Basic techs is fine for level 1, General techs for level 2, Specific techs for level 3, and applications for level 4 seems appropriate.

Do you realise the 4 levels allows sub branches of broad scientific areas to be placed in the second level. (Gets rid of a lot of the physics debate.) They also will only become available when the basic tech level reaches a certain point. EG. Physics works as a basic tech when it reaches 15% we get to study mechanics, when we hit 30% we get to study electro magnetics, at 45% we can move on to atomic research, at 60% we may move on to cosmological research etc. Mechanics would not require an additional prereq but the others probably will need some in other physics general tech areas and potentially in completely seperate tech areas. The basic tech is still there slowly ticking along but the research points could flow down to the general techs and then to the specific techs.

Interface wise we could control this with several drill down screens starting with the basic techs and allocation sliders. We could then drill down to a specific basic tech showing the break up of the Rp's down to the general tech level and so forth. If someone really wanted to micromanage there techs then they could but they could stuff up by sidelining a tech that may later be important. (A button to reset the RP flow to evenly spread would be good.) It may even be possible to withhold a few points for use specifically on applications. (The old throw money at it and it may come quicker approach) Certain SE choices would limit how much control a player can have over research flow.


Just a general observation. The tech model in civ 2 was a tree, There is nothing that bad with a properly designed tree. Its just that Civ and civ2's trees were badly built.
We can use a tree of applications but it would be closely tied to a specific tech. The tree itself would be small. Personally Id prefer no trees just a modifier influenced random application system that mostly gives the historic trees but it may allow for some oddities. (eg semi auto / revolver muskets etc.)

Hows that?

[Krenske]

Mark,
If we look at 15 basic techs, with each having 3-5 general techs and each of these havin 0-5 specific techs that will give (15 * 4 * 3) around 200 techs.
Of course if we use just the following as the base techs.
1. Production Technologies
2. Transportation, Communications, and Commerce
3. Arts and Popular Arts
4. Hard Sciences
5. Soft/Social Sciences
6. Government, Law, and Management
We can then use the mentioned areas as general techs and more detailed ones as specific techs. That way we would have (6 * 4 * 4) around 100 specific tech areas with sets of applications. This could be cut down some more by judicial pruning. (EG. Would we really have 16 odd arts areas to research or would they mostly stop at the general level.) Applications would not need to start at the specific level some would become available at the general level.

Just a thought though wouldn't you regard Medicine as a hard science, or do you regard it as soft with a number of hard science prereq's?

[Mark_Everson]

Krenske:

Dang simul-posts! This refers to two posts above.

Everything you say sounds fine to me except the interface... I picture the interface as being run at the Specific tech (3) level. The player IMO, generally doesn't really give a damn about Physics or Economics, they want the stuff that will allow them to get applications. In fact I really hated the new idea from both a player, and AI perspective, until it occurred to me that the management should really be done at the Specific Tech level. After that, it seemed just fine! I do like the educational aspect of knowing what the foundations are for a specific application. But making the player drill down endlessly through menus to exert some fine control on the technology process seems like a losing idea to me.

The picture I have is that the player can be presented with many Specific Techs at the same time coded in "traffic light" fashion. The green ones are ones that could give you immediate benefit in terms of applications. When you put resources into one of these the research points would (Player option) go up levels to push along the higher techs that are needed, and also trickle-down into specific applications that are attainable. This is basically a pretty straight adaptation of the idea I presented in my post around 1300 today. When the specific tech is coded yellow, you are close to being able to use some applications in, but not quite there yet. In this case research points that you put into it would go mainly up levels to further the basic technologies that this Specific Tech relies upon. When it gets practical to actually get applications out of it, it would turn green. Finally, the red ones (which might or might not be shown) would be very far from practicality. If you decided to put resources into these the resources would be directed completely "upwards" to build the foundations that will eventually result in this Specific Tech coming to fruition.

Anyway that's my two cents worth.


Now onto the second post...
I agree that the numbers are pretty scary! But I'm not sure you have the way they would expand completely correct. There will a lot of "inbreeding" between parts of the trees that you are double-counting in your approximation. However, one thing I didn't think about when I picked a number like 50, is that 50 at one time is workable. That might be more like 100 or so, since a lot of the modern ones won't come into play until much later in the game. Also, by the time you get to the modern world, many Specific techs will have completely disappeared (for instance the whole woodworking branch should be gone). Basically, there might be some heated discussion, but we could just enforce that each core game model gets at most 10 Specific techs (perhaps giving military 20) and winnow it down that way. But before going to all that effort, I'd say we need to see if the model feels good!

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Krenske]

> Dang simul-posts! This refers to two posts above.

Yeah they are annoying.

As to the interface your proposal is based on allocating for lots of small areas and that it then flows up. Or in otherwords the RP flows from small to large. Mine went the opposite large to small. Either would not be difficult to implement for AI.

In mine we would just use a template of expenditure modified by the civs current situation. (A civ at war will skew towards military techs, A civ that has run out of land and has no neighbours will skew towards maritime spending.)

In yours the AI would do a similar thing using skewing factors based on the current situation.

> That might be more like 100 or so, since a lot of the modern ones won't come into play until much later in the game. Also, by the time you get to the modern world, many Specific techs will have completely disappeared (for instance the whole woodworking branch should be gone).

I didn't think of that. Your right. A number of the specific tech areas would just vanish or not be visible at any one time. For example theoretical cosmology wouldn't even appear until quite recently. And many of the early specific techs will be fully researched. They could be displayed based on their primary base tech because I think that you will still wish to limit the number displayed at any one time. Actually you would have 4 different statuses of the techs. Ones that are fully researched, application techs, researchable techs and incomprehensible techs. Spending would be limited to the middle 2 and as you say the application tech expenditure would split between going back up the levels and on applications, while withresearchable tech it all moves back up the levels. The techs should be given a visibility rating to signify how far ahead you can see them coming (to put it in driving terms).

We may need to allow for funding the general areas directly rather than all coming through the specific techs.


> Basically, there might be some heated discussion, but we could just enforce that each core game model gets at most 10 Specific techs (perhaps giving military 20) and winnow it down that way. But before going to all that effort, I'd say we need to see if the model feels good!

Alright, so for hard science we would have (example only I'm sure I've missed some) physics, chemistry, biology, geology etc, as the general areas. The specific areas would be limited. Physics would have 5-6 specific branches.

AS to military having 20 specific areas ( I consider firearm to be a specific area, artillery, rocket, melee weapons etc.) I think we will not need that many. What we will need is some applications with military uses popping up in other specific areas. (EG, a small radar application tree appearing in the radio communications area. Another good example is chemical weapons)

[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited February 03, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

Rich
The same objections to Robotics still apply. It is not really a basic field of knowledge. Would you say that it deserves the same kind of treatment as Biology? It is basically a string of applications. All of the basic theories regarding robotics will be a part of the Computers and Mechanical Engineering technologies. Of course, this can be resolved if we alter the tree structure as Krenske proposed . . .
------
OK if i go with that assumption (the former not the latter) then cybernetics would have to be differnt since it isn't the same as computers or electronics since neither of them incorperate the use of electronics for use with the human body (generally, although it could include animals) that they not only try to preserve life, like an oxygen tank for someone who is hard at breathing, but cybernetics goes another step and tries to directly put machinery to replace/enhance parts of the body in such as way as it becomes physically a part of them. This would fit into your theory of basic technologies then.

Rich and Kereske
That sounds okay but we would have to add a fifth layer.

Level 5 are items/improvements/structures (IIS). The differance from IIS and application tech is that the latter are things like genetic engineering, automotive technology, crop rotation. IIS are things like regrowable body parts, genetic weapons, cars, trucks, vans, tanks, plow, etc.

Application techs are more of ideas for the most part while IIS are more physical uses of those applications.


[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited February 04, 2000).]