Technology System Version 5.3

[F_Smith]

Mark, Beor:

Sorry, I did misunderstand Beor. I thought he saw something new I hadn't. I've read the econ info (I've read everything -- there's just so much of it and it's all over the map it's impossible to keep it all in mind).

I will respond to some of these threads late tonight, but most of my time after the kids go to bed will be spent on beginning to lay out the basic architecture for an 'alpha prototype' we'll call Demo 5.

I might have some simple screens to share tonight, too.

[Beör]

Some more comments on the 'Can knowledge belong to infrastructure thing'. Some of this is a crosspost from my new thread, but very relevent here.

F_Smith insists on keeping Theory objects in infrastructure objects. But somewhere in all this there is an opening that I don't think anybody else spotted:

quote: Originally posted by F_Smith september 23rd in tech thread Just to reiterate, for your amusement: The 'tech system' will not belong to the 'civ' object. The 'civ' will hold 'provinces'. The 'provinces' will hold mapsquares. The mapsquares will hold EGs. The EGs will hold knowledge. Either the civ will hold a collection of 'theory' objects or the infrastructure objects in that civ will hold 'theory' objects. You will be able to define two different levels of 'theory' -- 'General Theory' (your level 1 tech) and 'Theories in a Specific Field of Knowledge' (your level 2 techs). You will be able to define any number of levels of 'knowledge' (your level 3 techs) objects -- and don't worry, we'll start with just one.

Did you notice it:

Either the civ will hold a collection of 'theory' objects or the infrastructure objects in that civ will hold 'theory' objects

But F_Smith why didn't you say so before. Theory objects don't need to be stored in infrastructure, they can be stored at the civ level, which is an entirely different concept.

This is much more like the original idea of the tech system where there is a civ level amalgamation of knowledge. The next step would then be to consider how this civ level tech level is derived.

In my opinion it should be a function of the tech level of each and every EG in the civ. But I imagine that some would claim that the civ level tech should be something more than just the sum of all available knowledge. They would like to see Universities and Cathedrals producing knowledge that is far beyond the grasp of the ordinary population. This is realistic, and in my opinion can be achieved seemlessly using the tagged RP approach. We should just equip a university with the ability to transform output into RPs tagged for theory development, and we would have our specialised infrastructure objects. The people living in these squares would have far superior theoretical knowledge, and would pass it on to the civ level tech level. Likewise, people at the cost could produce RPs tagged for shipbuilding and would become extraordinarily skilled shipbuilders. A skill that would also be passed to the civ level.
What we should use the civ level tech level for is then open for discussion.

One of my main objections to the knowledge-in-infrastructure thing, apart from our varying conceptions of whether books represent knowledge or information, was one of gameplay. If the infrastructure was captured or destroyed the consequences in my opinion would be grossly unrealistic. If the theory objects instead are stored abstractly at the civ-level (really at the civ interface) this objection is no longer valid. The theories would then only be destroyed or captured if an entire civ was destroyed. This is much more realistic. I could live with that.

[F_Smith]

Mark:

People will hold their own tech info -- 'knowledge' --(thru pointers, as you mentioned). But it is my analysis that there will also be the need to store tech info (theories) in 'infrastructure' objects. I think I've tried to explain why exhaustively.

I'm not willing to drop that for two reasons.

First, this is how designing a program is *suppose* to work. The programmers get the basic objects necessary from the designers, then design an architecture. The designers then work with that architecture to develop the business/game logic.

From the beginning, here, the designers have rejected that input without understanding it, insisting on architecting the program themselves. So I'm not convinced people have understood the design yet, since no one has given any OO reason for changing the design. People can't just say "we don't like this", or "I don't understand why this is this way" and convince me to change an architecture that is necessary (in my analysis). As long as it can support all the functionality you want seamlessly, I think it'll work fine.

And second, the 'ethnic group at the mapsquare' argument leaves me somewhat confident that I should stick with my guns.

If you can show me an OO reason to change it, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I'll have to remain with this design.

* * *

Richard:

From my standpoint, the only problem has been that you haven't been listening to input from more experienced people.

You're standing fast and arguing hard over program architecture decisions that you don't understand. A programmer told you 'it has to work this way' and you rejected that, insisting it has to be architected your way, even tho you have never even seen an object design or system architecture.

You're a bright guy. You're valuable to this team. You're certainly not the only designer that has been rejecting programmer's input over the last year. So don't feel too bad.

But we -- all of the 'designers' and the programmers -- are going to have to learn to work together. Ya'll are going to have to accept programmer input, and be willing to change from time to time based upon that input.

And yes, this design will support yours, mine, and even the old 'tech tree' type system (which I do think is more 'fun' than this abstract system ya'll have designed), if we want to add that as an option. I am saving my idea of the perfect tech system for an 'optional' system, just like I did for 'politics'. I also think we absolutely should include a 'tech tree' option, too. Those are fun, too.

That's the mark of a good design, being able to 'scale' to cover many different types of systems.

The system I have in mind actually is something fairly radical for a 'tech' system. It's actually heavily suggested by analysing the design itself -- Beor might see where I'm going to head. Tech will 'grow', like a living system.

I'm pretty sure there's no way I can explain this to ya'll in terms I can make clear, so I think I'll just code it later and show you.

[F_Smith]

Beor:

Hmmm.

I'm not sure I agree with that analysis.

I was of a mind that a 'military unit' would just be another type of 'group'. Perhaps 'ethnic group', 'military unit' and any other 'mobile' groups of people would simply extend a basic 'pop group' object, or something like that.

I wasn't aware that there will be no cities -- is this true? That's not good, I can't agree with that if that's the case. What kind of a wargame will that leave us with? Besides, I think Mark already told me that some infrastructure would be tied to mapsquares.

This is all why the basic architecture has to be done before we go any farther. The 'map' object hierarchy must be done *first*. Then the 'population' object hierarchy will have to be designed.

I would love to begin doing a basic OO on the map stuff, if you're up for it. In another thread, I should think?

[Richard Bruns]

I recently realized that I had neglected to include diplomacy based tech transfer in the tech model. The players should have the option of trading or stealing techs.

These would not give the tech level directly, but would transfer a certain number of RP's of the proper type. These RP's would be added to your RP pool in the first step of the tech change system. This is somewhat silly, as you could get the tech even though your civ is doing nothing to research it on your own. But I think it is the only good option.

I thought for a while that these plans from others could multiply RP production rather than adding to it. It would make sense to do this, as you would have to be doing research on your own to gain the benefit. But then I realized that could be abused. Players could make their RP production surge on the turn that they got the other tech, thus sending their tech higher than the other civ's. So we should probably stick with the addition even though it makes less sense.

When trading tech, the number of RP's would depend on the tech level difference and the generousity of the ally. When stealing it, the diplimacy model determines the success of the spy operation. I think that there are already plans for that.

[Mark_Everson]

Richard:

Sounds reasonable to me.

All:

Here is my first stab at responding to some of Beör's stuff regarding tech. I have responded to the other stuff in his monster thread . This is just a cut-out of that discussion put here since its the primary area of this discussion. When I quote something it should be understood that it is a comment of Beör's unless it has someone else's name in front of it. I am going to try and be brief, because otherwise my comments could run on forever

Quote] Knowledge is persistent. You do not have to maintain it. [/Quote]

Well in fact, knowledge levels have declined many times in the history of the world. I believe that even though an aqueduct exists, the people may have lost the ability to make a new one, and so I would consider the tech level responsible for creating an aqueduct to have been lost before the last aqueduct disappears. I think the Tech model does a reasonable job on handling this. Although the details aren't quite there yet.

quote: If the square is conquered the knowledge passes to the conqueror and is lost to the original owner.

I disagree with this statement. If the conquerors are not receptive to the knowledge that people have, or simply slaughter them, that tech should never be transferred to the conqueror. I think it is better to handle this similar to Tech transfer, as an acquisition of RPs that is weighted bicultural and other factors just as intact diffusion.

quote: Theory objects don't need to be stored in infrastructure, they can be stored at the civ level, which is an entirely different concept. This is much more like the original idea of the tech system where there is a civ level amalgamation of knowledge. The next step would then be to consider how this civ level tech level is derived.

This is the result I am more comfortable with also.

[Richard Bruns]

This is the Technology Glossary. The rest of the summary will come after we finally decide how things will work

Technology Model: The mechanism that changes the potential abilities of the civilization.

Technology: Any specific discipline responsible for changing the abilities of the civ. There are three Tiers of technology. They interact with the game in slightly different ways, but all of them have the same equations and should be treated the same way.

Tier 1, or Theory, includes abstract studies like Physics.
Tier 2, or Field, includes more practical disciplines like Optics
Tier 3, or Skill, includes specific processes like Lensmaking.

Technology Level: A logarithmic scale for measuring technology. All technologies grow in a continuous fashion, and the civ's mastery of the technology is defined by the technology level for that civ.

Applications are physical objects like military units. The civ's technology determines what applications it can make and how good they are. Application is sometimes called Tier 4 of tech system.

Knowledge: The ability of a person to do things. Also, the combined ability of the society to do things. This can only be a characteristic of a person or group of people. In the spreadsheet equations, knowledge is the linear scale of Technology.

Information: Any data that is stored outside the mind of a person. It can include books, blueprints, and working devices. It is used to transfer knowledge from one person or group to another.

Research Points, or RP's, are responsible for changing the technology level. RP's can be obtained through experience, teaching, invention, experimentation, contact with other civs, and the study of Information from other civs.

[Richard Bruns]

We have agreed in the Overall Project Issues thread that standard definitions are needed. I provided those definitions in the September 22 thread. They are the accepted definitions used by the tech team and the spreadsheet instructions. Please use them. The stuff stored in libraries is information, not theory. Theory already had a definition before this discussion started.

[Twinge]

Alright, this thread has been dormant for a while, And it doesn't look like it has really been resolved to me.
I propose a compromise between storing information between people and infrastructure; Here's a quote that seems the most related to what I'm going to say:

quote: People will hold their own tech info -- 'knowledge' --(thru pointers, as you mentioned). But it is my analysis that there will also be the need to store tech info (theories) in 'infrastructure' objects. I think I've tried to explain why exhaustively.

I propose that the majority of technology is stored in people, but I belive certain buildings such as librarys, in addition to creating RPs, should store some technology. While technology lives without buildings, buildings do help keep it alive and allow more widely spread knowledge of some subjects. I have come up with a few ideas that would work:
A) When you lose a building, you can lose a certain (somewhat random) percentage of some technologies, but the people still retain the majority.
B) Relating back to A, maybe the 'store' technologies more so if they haven't been used much. For example, if a technology is simply staying at the same percentage, not raising or lowering much, you can lose a small % of it when you lose some librarys. If the technology is going up and is very widely useded by the people, a loss of a library won't have much effect on that technology. And of course a technology thats already in decline would nearly vanish if nearly the only record of it (a library, continuing the example) were destroyed.
C) Another possible use/effect of library-like buildings could be to significantly reduce the lost % of a dormant, unused technology. It may not be public knowledge, but the knowledge still exsists and is accessible, therefore it won't vanish as fast.

I think any of these ideas (or combonations/variations of them) would work in the game fairly well and be a fairly nice compromise for both sides.

Now on to another related topic, not as important:

quote: I must disagree with the analysis of the results of killing the Inca rulers. IMO their leadership role was more important than the science role. They were basically the government, so when they were killed the result was chaos. Most of their civ's practical and productive techs, like farming and making weapons, were unaffested by their deaths.

I know the story of what happened, so I'll try to paraphrase it here:
There was a ruler whom the people didn't care for very much. He was a cruel ruler, and no one liked him much. At one point, some villagers/councelors got him 'drunk' on cactus juice and other such nautral drugs, and made it to look like he had 'slept' with his sister. He was incredibly ashamed when he woke, and left the city. But he vowed he would return, and gave a date. On his way tword the coast, he cut Xes in trees so he could find his way back. Well, about this time, the Europeans were sending people over twords the 'New World.' As the day The 'bad' ruler was supposed to return approached, the new ruler has people keep watch and wait for his return. When the day came, it just so happens that Cortez landed his ships there, with their white sails with red crosses on them (Cristianity). The look-outs went back to the village and told what they saw: clouds with Red Xes on them... The current ruler got very afraid, and gathered gold and native food. He thought "If he really is 'Mr. Bad Ruler', he will recognize these as Incan gifts and accept them. Cortez also happened to roughly fit the appearance of 'Bad ruler', and when gifts of valuable gold and fresh food were brought, he instantly accepted them. Eventually they led him and some of his men back to the main 'castle'; Cortez ended up killing the current leader and his council. This is how 500 men conquered a population ov 8 million: Fear.
And there you have it, the main reason was neither government nor technology: It was their complete fear for the returning 'bad ruler'
(Sorry for the dumb name of 'bad ruler', I couldn't rember his real name.)

And one last quote to respond to:

quote: Besides,after all these plans, I don't think you'd be happy going back to Civ2. I'm certainly not!

Just because Civ2 isn't as realistic as Clash will be doesn't make it less of a game. Really the main thing I look for in any game is gameplay; and Civilization has a very good and fun 'gameplay engine', therefore I will still like it for years to come. (I still play Civ1 sometimes--Its old enough where I have to underclock my already slow computer for it to run right =)

Well, I covered most of what I wanted to say, Sorry if I said anything that has already been said--I read through most of this thread, but for someone who just came here, it's quite daunting.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Twinge:

I kinda like your points B & C reasonably well, and maybe we can use them. Lets see what Richard and the others think. Just to warn you, F_Smith was really talking more about code organization than game mechanics in that bit... although clearly he sees them as intertwined in this area.

Thanks for the ideas!

[Richard Bruns]

Thanks for looking over this, Twinge. Your analysis looks food. Those are, in fact, the kind of results we are looking for in the tech model. Sounds like a good plan.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Thanks. If you find anything else don't hesitate to respond, just don't make the common error most newcommers do and post 20 things at once.

[Mark_Everson]

At the risk of opening a can of worms... and then having to eat them

I've been thinking about one major tweak to the technology system that IMO could increase the game play value while admittedly adding a bit of complication. I think we've talked about it before, but it was shelved. While I was looking over the Guns Germs and Steel forum, I noticed that was the way they are planning to handle technology, and it seemed worth reappraising on our end.

The idea is to add a limited set of breakthrough technologies that are one shot things that you either have or don't. So in one sense it's like adding a small contained amount of the Civ2-type system to the more continuous one. I'm thinking of something like 15 or 20 of these for the whole period of history.

The advantages would be that it would give players a set of important targets to strive for, while not overloading the system, or requiring that all technologies be one shot deals. I guess my quintessential example would be "Invention". Before the widespread notion that you can actually strive to invent something new with a purpose, technological advancement is of necessity slow. After this one idea takes hold, I could easily see the rate of progress doubling. I don't have any independent figures to back this up, but even if it's not realistic, I think it will be Fun.

Of course, this idea also has some disadvantages, and it puts in those large nonlinear things that I've been striving to keep out of the game so that writing the AI is easier. It would also possibly complicate the interfaces for technology a bit. But I'd like to hear at least what people think about the idea, especially Richard and LGJ.

BTW I hope to start coding on Tech in a few weeks, a little after we release demo 5. That is, I'll do it unless someone else wants it more!
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Richard Bruns]

If all these breakthroughs, like Invention, are social or they change the people's way of thinking, go for it. This kind of thing is what I imagined social rechs would be. Social techs were going to be different because they were surprising and nomlinear like that. The social tech system is still under construction, and this would be a great thing to add to it.

But if they are mechanical or knowledge based kinds of things, it wouldn't work very well. I don't like the idea of planning for an evnet that doubles engine knowledge overnight. But don't forget that inventor characters will built in that could result in rather large advances.

So basically, it would be great for people's attitudes to shift overnight, but the body of knowledge should not change that drastically.

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Richard:

I hadn't thought about it in-depth ahead of time, but I certainly agree with your point. These breakthroughs should only change the rate of change of other technologies, not their levels.