Technology System Version 5.1

[Henrique Duarte]

Richard

I gave petrography as an example, but I can also give you examples of the use of:
geophysics, geochemistry, mineralogy, cristalography etc, etc, etc.

If you want that much detail, I can try and make a complete tech list and make their influence expressed per resource, but it would be pretty exhaustive and maybe it would diminuish game fun - too much detail and little game impact!

[Mark_Everson]

Richard, LGJ, Henrique, and everyone else:

The geology stuff is great in its detail...

However, I thought we agreed that we are supposed to be keeping the number of level 3 techs to something of order 100 so the player technology planning interface is reasonable. With 4 level 3 techs just in the mining area, we will have approaching 1000! It Just Can't Work for any reasonable interface. Also the player won't care, at least 95% of them anyway. The rule of thumb was something like 10-20 Per Model (Econ, Mil, etc.). I have a Lot of ground to cover in Econ, and we simply can't have more than one generic Mining tech at level 3.

The area where we Can have 1000 things is in level 4 applications. That's where IMO all the detail has to go. So I would propose that things like plate tectonics be handled essentially as applications that don't have to be "built". It's level would just feed directly into the prospecting effectiveness of the civ or whatever. I have an issue related to this that I need to bring up.

In working out some other things for the Econ model I have come across one problem with the Level 4 techs.Specifically the way the effectiveness works for level 4 technologies (applications) it implicitly assumes that one is handling an application like muskets that eventually becomes obsolete. For applications in the economic area, like libraries for educational infrastructure, we actually want something that improves continuously with the technological level. To fit into the current system we would need to have four or five arbitrary different kinds of libraries that became available in different points in time. I don't think anyone cares about this level of detail! It should be possible to simply have a library application that grows in effectiveness exactly at the rate that the knowledge in the helper technologies grows. So, for instance, if the "Paper and Printing" level three technology improves, the effectiveness of your libraries will automatically improve to match it on a one for one basis.

I realize that having two flavors of level four technology is confusing, and I would prefer not to do it, but I really don't see an alternative unless we want to litter level 4 with lots of improved versions of the same thing. Richard, perhaps we can make the effectiveness equation a little more general by putting in an exponent that determines how fast the application's effectiveness saturates. So for something like muskets the effectiveness would saturate fairly rapidly, whereas for libraries it would never saturate. This exponent would essentially describe the effective lifespan of a technology. This would have the added advantage allowing us to tailor how quickly an application gets to a point of diminishing returns for its improvement. Clearly some applications have much "longer legs" than others.

Other than this one problem I have run into, I think the general model is working Great! I think you really have a major advance here in how to handle a technology tree. You are completely right that is extremely easy to create things, and move things around, without disturbing the overall structure. I think the people doing scenarios will love it!

[Richard Bruns]

Mark: You are right about the obsolescence issue. I should have made it more flexible. So:

E=C1(T1-R1+10) * C2(T2-R2+10) * C3(T3 . . .

where E is effectiveness of the application, T is the current tech level of a specific tech, R is the requirement of that tech, and C is a constant.

The default constant would be .1, but it can be adjusted to change obsolescence speed. An additional bonus is that not all techs have to be equally important. Some can influence the level more than others.

I didn't anticipate the library type apps that never grow old. The application effectiveness equation for them would be:

E=C1*2^(K1(T1-R1+10)) * C2*2^(K2(T2 . . .

where E is effectiveness, T is tech level, and R is the requirement. C and K are both constants.

If C was 0.5 and K was 0.1, the application would rise just as fast as the tech level. Like the other equation, the constants in this one can be altered.

However, I still like the dynamics of the linear equation that models things that go obsolete. We could simply assign one of the equations to an application, and tell the player what type it is. We simply mark it as an Obsolescence or a Growth application. Obsolescence apps increase by the linear model, while Growth apps use the exponential equation.

Early Tech Acquisition:

This wasn't covered in the post. It is possible to get things before you invent them, but your ability to use it is based on the Application Factor. This will usually be less than one, but there may be a situation where you have high levels of three tech requirements, but are deficient in one area so you can't invent a thing with four requirements. You would then be able to use that thing at a higher app factor because the three good things cancel out the thing you are bad in.

You can get apps by trading or espionage, but this cannot be abused because you can't use a thing if your tech is low and you get it anyway if your tech is high.

Of course, it might also be possible to raise basic tech levels by trading or stealing.

[Henrique Duarte]

Mark

I agree
in a civ simulation approach the main subject of interest for the player would be something like:
primary sector - resource extraction (a.k.a mining)
if the player was really interested he would go and give proper attention to things like prospection, extraction, refinement.

But I would like to emphasise that the player should be able to invest in those specific techs if he wanted to.
In fact I tried to limit resource related techs to the two main techs (prospection and mining engeniering) because if you imagine any civ management you will see that these two techs will ALLWAYS play a big part in your decisions.
knowledge of location of resources (prospection related) is of enourmous importance (in my opinion allmost as important strategically as urban centers)
the capacity to explore those same resources and being able to feed your industry is also a major gameplay factor (this one relates to mining engeniering)
If you want to see the importance of resources try and see how many wars had a resource issue behind them.
Wars where, are and will be fought because of resources
If you want to know why Angola has been in continuous war for +-40 years you will be interested in the fact that Angola is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources!

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

I have a suggestion that I think is better for handling applications of both the transient and permanent (like libraries) sort in a uniform and consistent way.

The premise is that we have a variety of helper technologies each with a strength, and an overall longevity number that indicates how fast the application gets into the strong diminishing returns regime. I'm not completely happy with my expression, but I thought I would put it up and let people comment on it. I think regardless of what we do, we just need a few simple numbers, or even strengths in words, that we can tell the player, rather than have a zillion different constants floating around. The expression I have is not really simple, but its effects will be easily explained to the player.

First of all, longevity is on a 1 to 10 scale, with one meaning that the application suffers severe diminishing returns, and 10 meaning that it suffers no diminishing returns, essentially being a persistent application like libraries. The strengths of helper/required technologies would also be on a 1 to 10 scale, with one indicating a technology that helps a little bit, and 10 being one that is virtually essential to have an effective application.

To make this a little easier to understand, first I will define the relative tech level (RTL) of the application. The RTL is just the average (weighted by strengths of helper technologies) technology level by which the application exceeds its required technologies. When all the helper technologies are at their required level the RTL equals 0%. When all the helper technologies are 10% above their required level the RTL equals 10%. For the more complicated cases we just use the weighted average as shown below. So using the same terminology as Richard (but using S for the strength) we have:
RTL = (S1*(T1-R1) + S2*(T2-R2) + ...)/(S1+S2+...)

And the whole effectiveness formula is just:
E = (1+ longevity/10) ^ (RTL/10)

So for a longevity of 10, like the library example quoted in the post above, this expression has the effectiveness growing exactly as the knowledge level in the helper technologies. For a small longevity, the effectiveness will grow only slowly with technology. This simple expression may actually grow a little bit too slowly, and we might need to add a little bit to give an effectiveness boost in the range were RTL equals 0% to 10% or so.

What do you think?

[Lord God Jinnai]

Rich:

On early aquistition the latter (aquiring better basic techs) should and must be in there because this is how most stealing and trading is done. As to the former, if we do so we should model it similar to how we discussed with the inventor window. It shouldn't be able to be gotten unless all relevant basic techs are within 5% of the minimum standards since ur people wouldn't understand it. If it was traded, well then if u don't get to that point in say 3 years or 1 turn, whichever is longer it is considered lost since ur people have given up on understanding it. We could also model the useage of the applications similar to ur gradual loss of techs posted above.

Mark:

On the logetiity i still think there needs to be a dimishing returns even for things like libraries. Not that it should be very much, but it still should be there because just like anything else, the more u increase its potential the harder it becomes to increase it again (unless technology takes hold). Otherwise we are saying that libraries and similar things are above these basic mathmatical forulas which isn't true.
-------
Now for my next section. I am posting what I have done so far on the social advances. Right now there is only level 1 and 2 Tech levels posted. Also Social Scienses has been renamed to Humanities.

Format:
Level 1 Techs---Level 2 Techs

Arts---Literature, Music, Theater, Visual Arts

Humanities---Philosophy, Psychology, Religion
-----------
Formate:
Level 2 Techs---Level 3 Techs (Some may be shared with more tham 1 group).

Literature----Poetics, Story Telling

Music---Harmony, Instruments, Song

Theatre---Cinema, Play, Storytelling

Visual Arts---Animation, Painting, Sculpting

Philosophy---Ethics

Psychology---Analytical, Behavioral, Social

Religion---Nature Worship, Monastic, Monotheism, Polytheism
-------
This next section pertains also to the social model, but because it also pertains to the social advances i am posing it here (Mark, if u want I'll copy the section below and also paste it in the social thread).

On religion I will make some distictions. Nature Worship is not the same as poltheism for this model. The differamce lies in the structure of the religipm. Nature Worship deal with things relating SPECIFICALLY with nature, such as rain, sun, etc. This can include the abstracts of life and death. Polytheism goes beyond that and copes with man made ideas such as wealth or ideas/emotions such as love and war. Second Monotheism is as it says, a belief in a single deity. To differentiate this with some vauge religons that can be termed either mono- or polytheism, we would have the following basis:
Monotheism cannot have many signifigant "near powerful" demigods that are represntative of the main god, such as hinduism. Nor can it have powerful lesser beings that aren't gods but are considered decine beings, such as Chrsitianity with its sainthood (before any of u Jesus Freaks start blowing this away, I am well versed in many religions historically and have 2 friends that are even more so (they are experts in all but name) and they agree with me on that point. Monotheisms can have prophets, mesaihs, etc. so long as A> they aren't numerours. esp the latter an B> they are recognised by the people as represmtimg the god. These people can be worshiped, however, they can't be worshipped as gods, demigods or as seperate beings.
Monastic doesn't have any deities, but can have a ruling "force" or "Forces" without a personification.

I also believe we shouldn't put any RL religions in the game as people will subconsciouslly (or consciouslly) want a particular religion and also might get angry that they can't get it at the dawn of time because they think it is the "true" religion and want it right away.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited February 16, 2000).]

[axi]

I had started on this even before we decided to go for a multilayered tech tree and since it's exact form is not yet defined, I present to you my humble proposal. I believe that there is no field of knowledge left uncovered and that this view of knowledge is more wholistic and not so technology - oriented.

The techs are categorised according to their vital techs. We also need percentages and applications, but it will be easy to slowly build on this, by having the applications categorised according to the general tech corresponding to (the majority of) it's requirements. Depending on what applications we come up with, we can always adjust the other levels. Note that this model at least meets the size requirements put forth by Mark.

Level 1: Fields of Knowledge

1. Society
2. Science
3. Technology
4. Military

Level 2: General Techs (22)

1. Society
1.1. Arts
1.2. Humanities
1.3. Religion
1.4. Economy
1.5. Education
1.6. Administration
1.7. Law

2. Science
2.1. Mathematics
2.2. Physics
2.3. Chemistry
2.4. Earth Sciences
2.5. Biology

3. Technology
3.1. Transportation
3.2. Engineering/Craftsmanship
3.3. Resource Processing
3.4. Land Exploitation
3.5. Construction

4. Military
4.1. Tactics
4.2. Support
4.3. Fortifications
4.4. Weapons
4.5. Unconventional warfare

Level 3: Specific Techs (96)

1.1. Art
As the civilisation evolves, the artistic skill also rises into more perfect forms, while the population is craving for more complex forms of entertainment to be kept happy.

• 1.1.1. Music.
  H: Mathematics, Physics, Engineering/Craftsmansip.
  E: +Happiness
• 1.1.2. Litterature.
  H: Education, Humanities, Typography/Media.
  E: +Happiness, +Literacy
• 1.1.3. Fine Arts.
  H: Education, Engineering/Craftsmanship.
  E: +Happiness, +Architecture
• 1.1.4. Acting.
  H: Humanities, Typography/Media.
  E: +Happiness, +Propaganda?

1.2. Humanities

• 1.2.1. Sociology.
  Predominating social conditions and class relations.
• 1.2.2. Psychology.
  Effects in: Diplomacy, propaganda, education, military tactics, productivity, happiness.
• 1.2.3. History/Archaiology.
  Prevents tech loss and helps in rediscovery. Helps administration. Helps preserving some obsolete techs in effectiveness.
• 1.2.4. Philosophy.
  Has a general effect in all Fields of Knowledge, especially Society and Science.

1.3. Religion
The following values are not directly connected with a specific religion but with society as a whole. In this field advance is relative: "loss of technology" is expected to happen many times as the religious outlook of the civilisation changes and there is no obsolesence. A certain civilisation, however advanced, can be extremely backward in one or more of the religious fields.

• 1.3.1. Morality.
  Effects in crime, corruption, diplomacy, etc.
• 1.3.2. Ascetism.
  It has a drastic effect in the function connecting happiness with material goods.
• 1.3.3. Tolerance.
  A value affecting relations between cultures, nationalism, fundamentalism, scientific liberty, the existence of taboos, etc.
• 1.3.4. Worship.
  A value that describes how ritualistic or iconoclastic is the religious feeling, the influence of tradition and basic beliefs about the essence of God (polytheism, monotheism, atheism - the works)

1.4. Economy

• 1.4.1. Trade.
  Development of mercants, trading schemes, trade infrastructure and media, etc
• 1.4.2. Commerce.
  Concerning economic life inside a province. Marketplaces, bazaars, stockmarkets, corporations, leasing methods, etc
• 1.4.3. Finance.
  Banking, investments, money-lending, subsidizing, taxes, etc
• 1.4.4. Marketing.
  Distribution of goods, luxury level, advertisement, economic competition, etc

1.5. Education

• 1.5.1. Basic Education.
  H: Humanities
  E: +Economy, +Productivity.
• 1.5.2. Academic Education.
  Raises the player's capability to invest directly in higher levels of knowledge.
• 1.5.3. Literacy.
  The overall level of education of the population. Affects whole society, increases standards for quality of life.
• 1.5.4. Athletism.
  H: Biology, military training.
  E: +Happiness, +Health, +Ascetism

1.6. Administration

• 1.6.1. Government/Institutions.
  Some forms of government are much more complicated than others and became viable only after some primitive ones became obsolete.
• 1.6.2. Economic Planning.
  A value representing how planned or free is the civ's economy. Just like the religious concepts, this is relative, suffers no obsolesence and "loss of technology" is commonplace whenever a more liberal policy prevails. I envisioned economic planning as technology because a system that drastically changes in this area is undergoing a period of rediscovery (vide Russia). The direction of evolution however is obvious
• 1.6.3. Centralisation.
  Representing how centralised or localised is the administration. One of the MAJOR values in the game, it greatly affects the control of the budget (just as economic planning), the function of provinces and bureaucracy. Works exactly like economic planning, although here the direction of evolution is not obvious. (Both techs are based in an idea of Rodrigo in the econ tread)
• 1.6.4. Diplomacy.
  Marks the difference between the diplomacy of Iliad (making war for a woman and validating treaties with the exchange of lavish gifts ) and the diplomacy of the State Department (no comments).
• 1.6.5. Propaganda.
  Evolution here provides the player with ways to control public opinion. Any propaganda method acquired is in use; if it is not used, it is lost; so this tech is demonstrating not the existence of propaganda methods, but their use. The only field where evolution is definitely NOT a good thing and one of the strongest temptations for the player.

1.7. Law
If Administration is hosting the advances that give power to the ruler, then Law is hosting all advances that give power to the people, to control their rulers. Advance in these fields is relative too, since laws are actually based on social contracts and not on any natural necessity. When laws are slack, they work to the advantage of the mighty against the weak.

• 1.7.1. Constitutional law.
  The means by which the people can oppose governmental imperiousness.
• 1.7.2. Administrative law.
  The means by which the people can oppose administrative authority and reduce corruption.
• 1.7.2. Civil/criminal law.
  The means by which order is preserved among the people and crime is reduced.

2.1. Mathematics

• 2.1.1. Geometry
• 2.1.2. Algebra
• 2.1.3. Calculus
• 2.1.4. Statistics
• 2.1.5. Astronomy

2.2. Physics

• 2.2.1. Mechanics
• 2.2.2. Optics
• 2.2.3. Thermodynamics
• 2.2.4. Fluid mechanics
• 2.2.5. Electromagnetism
• 2.2.6. Quantum/Nuclear physics
• 2.2.7. Astrophysics

2.4. Earth Sciences

• 2.4.1. Geology/Prospection
• 2.4.2. Geophysics
• 2.4.3. Geography/Topography
• 2.4.4. Meteorology

2.5. Biology

• 2.5.1. Medicine
• 2.5.2. Hygiene/Sanitation
• 2.5.3. Pharmaceutics
• 2.5.4. Botany
• 2.5.5. Zoology
• 2.5.6. Marine Biology
• 2.5.7. Ecology
• 2.5.8. Genetics

3.1. Transportation

• 3.1.1. Land transportation.
• 3.1.2. Seafaring/Shipping.
• 3.1.3. Air and Space transportation.

3.2. Engineering/Craftsmanship

• 3.2.01. Engines.
  Any technology or machine that has something to do with power production/consumption. An area of mechanical engineering actually.
• 3.2.02. Manufacturing.
  Various materials processes, machine tools, machine elements, manufacturing and assembly methods. Area of mechanical engineering. Directly related to Resource Processing.
• 3.2.03. Electrical engineering.
  Here goes any application of electromagnetism.
• 3.2.04. Typography/Media.
  Printing technologies, press, radio, television, etc
• 3.2.05. Communications.
  Mail, telegraphy, telephony, information networks, etc
• 3.2.06. Robotics.
  Including everything concerning teleguidance,automatic control and actuators of every sort.
• 3.2.07. Electronics.
  Every piece of electronic hardware, including computers.
• 3.2.08. Programming.
  Any software application that we want to include.
• 3.2.09. Naval engineering.
  Concerns the construction skills for all naval vessels.
• 3.2.10. Aerospatial engineering.
  Everything from hot air baloons to spaceships fits in here.
• 3.2.11. Industrial engineering.
  A very essential field, related to the organisation of production and quality control. Directly related with the productivity of labour and with the Economy and Administration techs.

3.3. Resource Processing
The technologic factor of the secondary sector, affecting the productive output of resources

• 3.3.1. Energy.
  Energy has always been THE major resource. Here goes any technology that has something to do with production and transportation of energy.
• 3.3.2. Metallurgy.
  Any technology concerning the processing of metals.
• 3.3.3. Woodworking/Paper/Composites.
  Concerning the productivity of resources from forestry. Wood is the first composite material that man has ever used.
• 3.3.4. Textiles.
  Concerning the productivity of resources from agriculture and animal breeding.
• 3.3.5. Tannery.
  A very important sector of the production in the antiquity. Resources from Animal Breeding.
• 3.3.6. Ceramics.
  From pottery and glasswork to the modern high-tech ceramics.
• 3.3.7. Synthetics.
  All synthetic materials, produced from the refinement of carbonhydrates: plastics, elastics, fuels, lubricants, etc.
• 3.3.8. Food processing.
  Pickling, drying, freezing, pasteurisation, maturing, radiation treatment, hard and soft liqoirs, tobacco, sugar, cocoa, coffee, spices, precooked and synthetic food, artificial flavors and essences...the list is endless...

3.4. Land Exploitation
Alternatively named resource extraction, it affects directly the productivity of the production sites in food and resources.

• 3.4.1. Mining
• 3.4.2. Forestry
• 3.4.3. Agriculture
• 3.4.4. Animal Breeding
• 3.4.5. Fishing
• 3.4.6. Hunting

3.5. Construction

• 3.5.1. Architecture
• 3.5.2. Masonry
• 3.5.3. Civil Engineering

4.1. Tactics

• 4.1.1. Mobility tactics
• 4.1.2. Shock tactics
• 4.1.3. Firepower tactics

4.2. Support

• 4.2.1. Training
• 4.2.2. Logistics
• 4.2.3. Combat Engineering/Siegecraft

4.4. Weapons

• 4.4.1. Handarms
• 4.4.2. Firearms
• 4.4.3. Artillery
• 4.4.4. Armor
• 4.4.5. Strategic weapons

4.7. Unconventional warfare

• 4.7.1. Guerilla warfare
• 4.7.2. Combined Arms
• 4.7.3. Espionage

Editorial notes:

1. I have added some comments in the field of Society, since some values there are quite innovative and controversial and in Engineering/Craftmanship which is still a mess, I'm afraid. If with my comments I have made a mess out of it, please excuse me.

2. I have now rearranged the things in Eng/Cr by making a well justified split.

------------------
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell

[This message has been edited by little green men from Mars (edited February 16, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by axi (edited February 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by axi (edited February 18, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

Mark:

Your system looks good for all positive RTL values. But what if RTL is negative? E will never be zero. My exponential equation had the same problem, but I just noticed this. I think that the dynamics of tech loss according to the linear model will work well, so if RTL drops to less than zero, the effectiveness should be:

E=10+RTL/10

If RTL is -10, E is zero.

But that is the only proposed change. It looks good otherwise. One comment is that it might be possible to have an application that increases effectiveness faster than the tech level, so we should keep the ability to set longevity to be greater then ten.

LGJ:

Any application you get uses the effectiveness equation based on your tech level. So if RTL is -10, you can't get it. Otherwise, you use it based on your E value for the relevalkt techs. That would be simple, realistic, and effective.

Your tree looks good.

axi:

Your ideas can probably be worked into the tree. I'll give this and other matters more thought after I finish my upcoming Calculus test.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 16, 2000).]

[F_Smith]

Axi's tree is very close to the system I'm more interested in, with a few caveats --

[*]I still feel that the level one 'techs' are actually 'theories', and should be handled at the 'civ' level as a 'theory object', not as a 'technology object' (an entirely different concept, since a 'theory' is an imperfect understanding of a 'tech' which should approach true understanding of that 'tech' as the theory improves), and not at the tech object level (a tech object will likely have methods for turning this into that -- iron and tin into steel, that sort of thing.) I think this design choice will affect us much, later. For one thing, a 'theory' object should be allowed to improve 'skill' objects in more than one of your 'fields of knowledge'. A better military 'theory' can and often does, in fact, lead to changes in society. Changes in societal theories can lead to improvements in Tech 'skill'. That sort of thing.[*]The level 2 'techs' are, to me, not really 'groups' in any real way, unless handled as civ 'skills' -- another completely different object with an entirely different implementation. Art (fine jewelers, say) doesn't directly improve law; Math doesn't directly improve Biology, brilliant tacticians don't directly improve weapons, and on, and on. If this is a civ's 'skill', that would be one thing, but then it must be handled and coded differently than as if it's a tech.[/list]

Just to reiterate, I'm willing to go as is. I'm not the strongest analyst you'll find (I sometimes go back to code weeks or months later and look at what I've written and wonder what I was on that day . . .)

But -- I think ya'll need to refine the analysis and design of this model, or face many of these same issues later, during coding. Designing this as a single tree lumps theory, skill and 'application' objects(the actual 'technology' part) into one object, mislabeling things that aren't 'techs' as 'techs', unless I'm missing something entirely. In the RTS I'm also working on, this is the model I'm using. I think it's the only way to go.

Just my pinched pair o' pennies.

[Henrique Duarte]

F_Smith

I agree with you. There is a difference between theoretical creation and the pragmatic results of theories, sometimes there are even pragmatic solutions, that relly mostly on experience, for things nobody really nows a proper explanation (Just look at primitive navigation tables used by the portuguese to sail around the world in 1400s and you´ll get my meaning!)
- this is a strong counter argument to the inability of a culture to use a certain application they acquired through stealing or trade. Humans are known to make things work of which they know next to nothing about.
By the way the romans used to say that greeks thought about things while the romans built things.

Yet I disagree with your example on maths. As I posted somewhat earlier, IMO maths and any native language are the basic forms of comunication the humans have developed. The first is the basic communication form for science while the second goes behond science.
Also the comunications ability of a culture influences directly their ability to create and inovate either in theoretical fields or "skills".

Anyway I also think tech fokes should give some thought to the theory/skill vs Tech discussion

[F_Smith]

Henrique:

I completely agree with you, that Math theory, or any scientific/other theory is important and relevant. I believe that is what you refer to when you mention the 'language' of math -- a 'theory'.

I just disagree with calling this, and treating it as, a 'technology'. It is not, at least not as I understand 'technologies'.

[Lord God Jinnai]

F_Smith:
I still feel that the level one 'techs' are actually 'theories', and should be handled at the 'civ' level as a 'theory object', not as a 'technology object' (an entirely different concept, since a 'theory' is an imperfect understanding of a 'tech' which should approach true understanding of that 'tech' as the theory improves), and not at the tech object level (a tech object will likely have methods for turning this into that -- iron and tin into steel, that sort of thing.)...
-----
First thing, until recently theories and stuff haven't really been dealt with directly by government because governments wanted something practical they could use right now, not something that only a "few elite" could understand. Until axi came along with his idea we really didn't have a way of showing this, but now with his help we've devised a way.

...I think this design choice will affect us much, later. For one thing, a 'theory' object should be allowed to improve 'skill' objects in more than one of your 'fields of knowledge'. A better military 'theory' can and often does, in fact, lead to changes in society. Changes in societal theories can lead to improvements in Tech 'skill'. That sort of thing.
-----
Your first example should be handled in the social model, not in the tech model. The second will be handled with the cultural modification to RP cost for basic techs.

The level 2 'techs' are, to me, not really 'groups' in any real way, unless handled as civ 'skills' -- another completely different object with an entirely different implementation. Art (fine jewelers, say) doesn't directly improve law; Math doesn't directly improve Biology, brilliant tacticians don't directly improve weapons, and on, and on. If this is a civ's 'skill', that would be one thing, but then it must be handled and coded differently than as if it's a tech.
-----
Art & Law---How did u make that comparison?
Math & Biology---Afirmative, but math is more of what we call a "soft" prerequisite for most things, meaning it isn't ness, but having more helps.
Tactics & Weapons---Arfirmative, i do agree with u there since new weapons usually mean new tactics, even if they are more efficent, otherwise there's a heavy cost (US Civil War using outdated tactics). Rich will have more to say on this though.

But -- I think ya'll need to refine the analysis and design of this model, or face many of these same issues later, during coding. Designing this as a single tree lumps theory, skill and 'application' objects(the actual 'technology' part) into one object, mislabeling things that aren't 'techs' as 'techs', unless I'm missing something entirely. In the RTS I'm also working on, this is the model I'm using. I think it's the only way to go.
-----
Um, but i can't see how in ur version u would handle the first point i made which i think is ness for game balance, while still allowing the player to feel like they have some control over their civ's manafest destiny.

[Lord God Jinnai]

I'm with Rich in saying we don't really need a level 0 tech for math and liquistic communication. First off he's right when he says that a level 0 techs would be beyond a governemnts control. This isn't true for math and, theoritically isn't true for liquistics (though in practice this isn't true). Also beyond the near beginning having a higher liquistics wouldn't help much, and in fact would prob hurt because if u go by the assumption that it expresses more complex ideas, more evolved lauguage(s), etc. then u'd also have to agree that it gets more complex and harder to interpret meanings, even within the same language. FE if someone asked me and a freind if i wanted another burger and my friend said "yes" and then i said "me, two." then i'd likely be interpreted as "me, too."

[F_Smith]

LGJ:

[*]But inventors do use theory, even at the most basic level of invention. Even if the 'theory' they use is wildly incorrect. And since a good research 'model' must allow 'inventor' objects to use 'theory' objects and 'known tech' objects (or technologies) to combine them into a new tech object, I feel this model falls short.[*]That is, in effect, my point. The 'Fields of Knowledge' -- the first 'node' in ya'll's 'Tech' system -- in fact belongs in a different part of the design. A civ's basic understanding of Math theory does not, to me, belong in the 'tech' design.[*]I was going by Axi's chart, I'm sorry. But I read that as the idea that a 'Social' tech will enhance both 'art' tech and 'law' tech (relating them) which seems, to me, like a mistake. The entire concept of a 'Social' tech is, to me, unworkable and unrealistic. I see 'social organization' as a seperate, distinct object with it's own behavior. It can influence many things -- but it is *not* a 'tech', as I understand technology. The same goes for the other 'fields of knowledge', as well. They should not be simple percentages and modifiers, they should be objects with behaviors.[*]My understanding of 'player control' is that they will not have anything to do with the actual number-crunching, merely in setting 'goals'. And if that is correct, then ya'lls analysis, which sums up skill, theory and tech as percentages, is (for my game-playing tastes) far to dry. I prefer a seperate 'system' for each, with seperate 'objects' (each with appropriate behavior) -- a 'tech' system, a 'theory' system and a 'skill' system. They must inter-relate in the 'research', but be seperate systems.[/list=a]

[Richard Bruns]

F_Smith and Henrique:

What exactly do you want? First it seemed that you are simply changing a description, and then it seemed like you wanted to redo the entire model.

We already have the split between theory and application. Level 1 techs are broad theories, Level 2 techs are more specific fields of knowledge, and Level 3 techs are practical skills. They are different things, even though they use the same equations.

If you could provide specific examples and explain exatly what you are interested in, we will comminicate better. Now, I have no idea what you want to do.

---
F_Smith:

And since a good research 'model' must allow 'inventor' objects to use 'theory' objects and 'known tech' objects (or technologies) to combine them into a new tech object, I feel this model falls short.
---
You are describing a tree that uses discrete techs linked by prerequisites. This simply will not work. We have to simplify the details so that the overall system works. A tree based on 'objects' is inherently clumsy, unrealistic, and prone to errors and bugs.

I know that you would love to micromanage techs, but no one else does. A game that required micromanagement of every single little tech would be horribly boring, even for someone like myself who actually is interested in technology. And most people really don't care about the tech tree, except as a thing that allows them to make or do better stuff.

We have to make the system 'dry' so that players will not drown. It is a necessary compromise.