 |
| |
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
 |
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
Hrafnkell:
I'd like to redo the tech model with your permission. I'd be using the non-TL and isntead use basically the "Hard" and "Soft" RQs. Also I'd like to add some more futuristic ones, nothing too far out there like Interdimential travel, but stuff that is currently being researched and has shown some possibility of success down the road. I do keep up with this so it shouldn't be to hard to figure out what can and can't be done.
I'll do one anywayz even if you don't want to, i just won't post it. I won't be putting in any "bogus" techs since its still hard enough to come up with enough other techs. I will prob also add a tag "geographical" which basically means you need to be geographically located near a source of relavent material.
Also I'd like to add a new tech group called "Basic Technology Advances" This would incorperate the idea brougght up by Peter. Basically this section doesn't have any new techs, but only adds effecincy to existing ones. It will work (can't remember that name of the curve but i want to say bell curve). Anywayz the level starts out incresing quickly the eff., the slowly tapers off and cost much more to make even a minor improvement. I know there's a point that no improvements can be made, but for right now i'm trying to keep it somewhat simpler. This will of course be modified via new technologies. For example:
Someone learns the tech "Crop Rotation" and dicides to go to there basic technolgies and research "Agriculture" in general some more based on what they know already. They do so and come up with better crop rotations and any other agicultural techniques prev learned. Then at the same time some reasech is put into the development of say "Pesticides" (getting a little out of sinc tech wise, but its only an example hehe). Anyway once that is discovered it resets the curve.
Effiecency in "Basic Technologies" is represented by simply percentages. This is the percentage of effeciency beyond the 100% that would normally be so if no research was spent in that basic technology. Also once a new tech is discovered, i'll use the above example, then the perecentage would be lowered. Agriculutre was originally at 0% then with the investments got up to 20% when the new tech was discovered. The new percentage for Agriculuture would be something like 8%. They still know more about crop rotation, but only the inital about pesticides.
Whew! I never thought I could type so much on one item!
---------------
Now for something totally differnt tech wise.
I think in the begginning technology reaserch should be blind. I don't have an exact date when this should be taken off, but many times techbology came about (and still does often) by accident.
FE: the telescope was inveneted when someone "forgot who" had two pieces of glass set up in such a way that it magnified the object he was looking at.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Keli
|
|
Reykjavik
Aug 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
I only send this message to say I'm 'in' again. I.e. I'll be watching all threads carefully and hopefully send few myself.
Lord God Jinnai:
Why don't you conjure the bare bones of your ideas onto paper and show them to us. Then we can decide how/if we can incorporate it into the existing model.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
|
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I'm working on it now, though it may take a week to complete since I'm redoing from scratch a lot of the stuff. I'm using many of the techs in the outdated, yet still handy tech chart for this. I'm removing much the technologies as I consider them to a> be under my basic research technologies b> I consider them things inherant to people with that level of tech (FE pirating isn't a learned technolgy, the shipbuilding is and pirates, or rather bandits will make the jump to pirating) or c> generally the same as something else...I am also adding and devided some to take care of this lacking in tech so there won't be any shortage.
Also the future techs will as I stated be things currently being researched that have show some hard or semi-hard evidence of success beyond being simply theory in a written form. This means time travel will be out, atleast backwords (i may leave it out all together for simplicity), however, transporter tech of non-living matter is a possibility since last year the first particle was transported across a room. This isn't much, but its more than many considered possible with out tech level. I'm adding these because I always hated ending up with 70 or 80 years of developing "Future Techs" at 1 per turn.
Finnaly to the basic technologies. True it will add more techs, but it will also eliminate many others...you'll see what I mean when its done.
Also there is one section I'd like some help on. The tech levels of art. I am very good at art and also very knowledgable about what is art and its history. I'm just wondering why its listed the way it is since the art styles (with a few exceptions) could have happened in any order. FE a Picaso style painting could've come in the greek era. Also the level of art is also a misleading idea since there is no such thing as "bad" art, just what each person consideres. For these reasons and many others I'm leaving this out unless someone can convince me otherwise.
Just a reminder, I should have it done sometime next week. Don't screem if I don't, I do have school work also. I promise to have it ASAP though.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Paul Crocker
|
|
Slidell, LA, USA
Jul 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Looks really good! I haven't delved into it too deeply, but I like what I've seen. I have a question regarding artillery (cannon advance). Since you call it "cannon", I'm assuming that you are referring to older (maybe pre-Napoleanic) artillery? You might want to have a tech called "ballistics" based on mathematics/trig for prerequisites to allow for more advanced artillery. Also, computers could allow for advanced (today's standard) tanks, since what really makes them so much more powerful than their predecessors (as in the Gulf War) is their computer controlled engines and fire-control systems. A BIG leap forward in armor!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Hi LGJ:
It looks good. I have a bunch of comments, but not much time right now, so I'll talk about the one glitch that struck me, and post later in more detail.
The Specific way you handle the basic technologies seems flawed. The General Idea is very good, don't get me wrong... The way you have it working now IIRC is that when I get Television (req. Electronics 50%) Electronics will dip down to, say 45% or some such. This may be ok for Just handling Television. But Space Shuttle also required Electronics 50%! So researching Television would preclude Space Shuttle the way you have it now. This will Infuriate many players, and makes no sense. This type of thing will probably occur quite a lot for different techs as things get further along.
Instead of what you've done, I propose that when you Just get a tech the involved basic tech will stay at the same number. However your new shiny tech will start out without full effectiveness, and will only reach full when the associated basic skill rises by a certain amount (or fraction of the base needed). So you'd start out with small-payload, expensive space shuttles, but as electronics or other basic technologies, like aeronautics or space tech... improve your shuttles would get better And cheaper. So at electronics 60% and space tech 60% (just picking numbers for example) your space shuttles would be x% more effective.
Another related problem in civ is that when you make the First of a mil unit it performs like every other. I'd like to have a way for them to get Less expensive with the number built, and more Effective with the experience had using them. Perhaps this isn't in the tech model per se, but I"m mentioning it here since there may also be a tie-in to basic military operational/tactical techs that I think you do need eventually.
Great Job and thanks for moving the ball forward on this.
-Mark
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
|
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I understand your problem behind the basic technologies, and that particular item was a mistake, but considering how much there is kinda hard to catch them all on a first run-through. They overall idea though that I was trying to do was to allow the players to research some concepts out of the current order that they have been done in this world. This is not to say that someonce could develope the fusion power plant before they develope a fission one since they are scientifically much harder to make (fusion that is).
I was also thinking bout not having the dip down when new technologies are designed, however some of the do radiccaly change the basic fundimentals of those basic technologies. FE michochip technology turned the computer world upsidedown. I wouldn't be sitting here today in my bedroom typing this message if we still used vaccum tubes!
So basically what I might consider is a compromise. Some technologies, like microchips, would lower the basic technology level much lower than I'd have done before, however most will not. How's that?
About the effiecency problem...That's the whole concept behind basic technologies...or atleast the original reason i decided to put them in. Someone who's at 30% in agriculture will not be as effiecnet as someone who's at 60%. I was going to put that in the 'effect %' when I redid it.
Now for the military concern...I was going to put 3 tactics, maybe 4 or 5 in basic technologies: ground tactics, naval tactics, air tactics and maybe mobile tactics and cyber tactics.
Ground: basic ground troops: Infantry, archers, knights up to today's army soliders.
Naval Tactics: from the first wooden ships to aircraft carriers and battleships and submarines.
Air Tactics: From balloons, which is one tech i forgot  and hang gliders to propperller planes to jets...satelites and any space ones would still be in this section since there hasn't beem to much as far as space warfare goes.
Mobile Tactics: of i do put this in it'd be for things like tanks and other such things.
Cyber Tactics: Although it hasn't really been used much yet, this is perhaps one of the most devestating type of attacks that could come in our time. Imagine having a civ wide blackout of all electronic communications.....
The costs of them getting cheaper...well wouldn't that apply to everything? The expierence I can't really do much here in the techs section cept with some of the more modern technologies. The former idea is a good concept, but I'd think that it would be more in a section of building/buying improvements, not that technology doesn't affect that...its just i haven't come up with exactly what improvements those would be.
Anywayz thanks for the info and I look forward to hearing about a reply to this and a more detailed analasys like u said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Paul Crocker
|
|
Slidell, LA, USA
Jul 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Actually, a form of "cyber" tactics has been in fairly wide use over the past 15 years, although we don't hear much about it in the media. Electronic warfare can prove devastating against those unprepared for it (just ask Saddam or Milosevic!). Examples include ECM, jamming, AWACS, signal/counter signal intelligence, EMP weapons, etc.
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, however, when you say land "tactics"...Are you referring to the technology applied to the weapons, or are you referring to the ways in which the weapons are applied on the battlefield? To be accurate, I think that "tactics" describes, well, tactics (how's THAT for profound, eh?). FE The use of aircraft for CAS (close air support) was first only seriously implemented in Korea (also in portions of WWII, but it wasn't universal until later) and really matured later than that. Before the tactics of CAS matured, aircraft were more effective in other roles. I'm more familiar with modern (WWII and later) tactics, but I'm sure that you could come up with earlier examples of tactics (maybe siege warefare in ancient times).
How detailed you get in defining and researching tactics really depends on how you plan on tying it into Clash. You should just be careful about distinguishing between "tactics" and "technology" (and "science" as well once we're on the topic) because these terms aren't completely interchangeable and you can confuse some people (nitpickers like myself!) that try to read too much into it. 
[This message has been edited by Paul Crocker (edited September 30, 1999).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Glak
|
|
While tactics aren't science they are knowledge. Though many cultures had both horses and bows it was the central asian nomads who developed the best tactics combining them. Without their exceptional skill in horse archery tactics (false retreat, etc..) the mongols wouldn't have dominated to the same degree. Tactics can be developed and shared much the same as most technologies. So they aren't techs but they behave in similar ways. It makes sense to throw them in with the techs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Hi LGJ:
I finally have enough time and brain power at the same time to discuss your tech work further. First, let me say that it's really good. I especially like the way you use the basic technologies. That will indeed streamline things quite a bit in terms of the size of the tech tree while getting things a bit more realistic. So, pretty much all I have to go on about at length are the details.
I still Really don't like the idea that achieving a particular tech can set you back in the basic tech that is it's requisite. For one thing IMO it would be Awful for gameplay. On a different tack I don't understand why you think it has an historical basis. Let's take the example of microelectronics (you call it microchips). Microelectronics Absolutely Did Not set back the technological level that our civilization enjoyed in the basic tech of engineering, or general electronics for that matter (it's not clear to me if you mean to reduce the electronics number, or the engineering number that is a prerequisite for microchips, so my description may not be right on target depending which you meant). All that happened was that things like transistors slowly began appearing in a variety of specialty products. The whole society did not switch over to transistors instantaneously, which indeed would have given problems in terms of getting everything to work. Instead, as with most new technologies, transistors, and later microprocessors, only made their appearance gradually. To have the "revolution" run its course took decades. At no point IMO was our engineering or electronics technology any the worse for having the new microelectronic devices. The way you have it working, every technology of mine that involves electronics will be set back in its functionality or cost or both when I discover microelectronics. Why?
I think the proposal I made in the post above is the best way to work it. (That it is the difference in the basic tech level between the minimal required, and the current level, that determines how well a tech works for the society) I agree with you that allowing people to do technologies and or social advances out of the normal historical order, within some limits, is a good thing. I think that can be done by making any basic tech prerequisites be somewhat soft. So, for instance, I could research microelectronics if my engineering number is within 5% of the basic required amount, but it would be at a much steeper cost the further I get away from the number that is "required". I think there should Never be a set back to technology that doesn't occur without a loss of a general education level, infrastructure, or something like that. Can you explain to me why you need to have some technologies that set back a basic tech level? I still don't get it.
End of that rant... Like I said, I think the general idea is excellent, and I always like the way increasing technological advancements cave incremental returns in Master of Orion.
Let's see, tactics has been discussed a lot since last I was here. I think, at a minimum you would need something like 4 different levels of land tactics associated with vastly different weapons systems that have occurred throughout history. Being extremely capable in ancient warfare forms does you very little good when you go up against a modern army. The tactics are tied very closely to the capability of the weapons systems one is using, and those the opponents are using IMO. You can look at my old tech chart to get an idea of how I thought the interplay between weapons technologies and tactics might go. My ideas in that regard are pretty off-the-cuff too, I don't think there are necessarily right, just that we need something like that.
This size of the tech chart also has me somewhat concerned. I think we have to be careful not to overload the player by making the tech chart too complicated. My first shot at it has a lot of entries, it's true, but because of its rigid row-and-column format it was relatively easy to take in after bumbling around a little bit IMO. With your more free-form one with hundreds of entries we need to make sure that we give the players tools enough to handle this in a way that doesn't boggle their minds. I'm open to ideas on this, and I don't think you've necessarily gone too far, but I thought I needed to wave a warning flag at this point that we should have least consider the issue. I know this isn't the final form of your tech tree, but right now it minds me a lot of the one in Destiny. This is very scary because Destiny was an awful Turkey of a game.
What else? I noticed that you didn't have in the tech tree actual methods for facilitating General acquisition of technologies like invention, innovation, and modern research methods. IMO these are very important, and perhaps even should be rated along with the other basic technologies, as enablers for social and technical progress. I think these are also good "gate keepers" for the various technical ages that societies have gone through historically.
Another set of technologies that might work well as basic technologies are the metallurgical and materials science ones. Without different levels of expertise in, for example, iron and steel working, there are a lot of technologies that are simply unattainable.
Minor Points:
Bronze working should require a supply of tin. And on copper working, copper is so generally plentiful that I had thought we should skip it as a special resource. The real important ancient metal before iron was tin, because it's much more rare than copper. Metallurgy should require A Lot More than just copper and iron working, and mathematics. It really requires a decent practical experimental approach, and therefore I think it should require at least Invention or some similar technology.
Well, that's it for now. I admittedly haven't looked over the tech tree very carefully at this point. I think it's more important for us to agree on the big framework issues first, and then be able to zoom in on the minutae. As you flesh things out, one thing I'd like you keep in mind is that in the alpha version of Clash I and the others are working on now, we're trying to cover mostly ancient stuff first so we have a chance to have something that's playable without working out all the modern rules. If you can try to flesh out the tech tree "from the ground up" so we will have the ancient techs all worked out first, it would really help out with the alpha version.
Great Work... And I'm glad your having fun with it ;-)
Mark
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13.
Apolyton Time is 00:13. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-09-1999 10:19
. I think the basic way we have things will make it somewhat harder to direct tech in unreasonable ways as can happen in civ.
|