 |
| |
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
 |
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I'm about finished discussing the current situation for the next tech chart with Rich, however since I see many people refering to the tech levels (specific techs, etc) I want to know exactly (or as best u can) what techs, social advances, items/improvs u want me to include in this new model!!! I REALLY REALLY REALLY would appreciate you telling me here or in the tech model or via e-mail (if its too large  ), but PLEASE do so!
This is very important as the tech model more than any other model (Social/Cultural coming in a very close 2nd cept it doesn't affect the disaster model as far as i can tell). Anyway this is why input is VERY important. I know TK posted in one of his models that he should try and work with me, but in reality everyone here does to some extent (cept maybe the multiplayer people). The sooner u respond and clearer u respond the sooner i can get the new model out so u can critique it.
The reason I'm asking before i release it is because its much easier to incorperate it now when i haven't really begun the actuall "assembledge" of the new model (Like i said earlier its a complete redo of the model almost)
I know I am rambling but even if u have a small idea and think it doesn't matter or someone else will propose it or I already will put it in there, still post it because we are all human (I'm assuming) and can easily miss something someone else missed.
Also, before I can post it, i need to know the cultural model's parameters for defining each type of culture. This is a must.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited January 13, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LOGO
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Aug 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
I'm not a "team member" but I have a couple ideas, or ideas I've heard. I've heard some ideas about having "research groups" to conduct research rather then just magical researchers who center on one tech, you could have a research group as a unit then plant them at cities. Then you could build improvements on the city to help the researchers. In the beginning they will be very all-purpose but as you get more advanced you are forced to upgrade to much more specialised sciences like nuclear physics or architecture (by the way there should be a tech like "sky scraper" for big cities to for) for specialised labs. You would have to fund these researchers and their labs, you would also need to build universities to train them like military units. The benefit of this is you could move them in times of invasion or transfer them all into one city of technology (it could happen). I don't know if this sounds like micro-management to you but it's an idea and I hope you atleast consider it, oh by the way I think the benefit of this is you would have a new system of strategy by telling differant groups to research mulitipal techs or one at once (a couple biologists at once for humane genome) it should also add bonuses to certain wonders e.g. architects could be assigned to the pyrimids.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlikwin
|
|
Hiya. I'm the new Mil Model Lead...
I havent had a chance to take a real detailed look at the tech tree/web so I can't make too much commentary on that yet. But I would like to see something like the alpha centuri model for reaserch i.e. reaserch a specific group of things and have the outcome be somewhat random. I'm also in favor of being able to reaserch several things at once. Well, thats my two cents on that. In terms of military tech, we are tenativley going with a dual model of technology and organization and leadership to determine combat. So something like tactics/orgainzation technologies are a good idea. Also some supply techs or something would be a good idea. I'll get back to you once I take a good look at what you have already got.
-Harlikwin
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlikwin
|
|
Ok, Currently I still really cannot comment too much on military techonology since we don't even have a unit list. But currently the units are looking like combined arms forces/armies.
Anyway I do however have some problems with the current model. I do not mean to be overly critical but you seem to put way to much emphasis on feudal japanese technologies, ala the samurai, katana, and ninjitsu. Personally I do not feel that these technologies had any real impact on any civilization other than the Japanese. Also you are probably under the delusion that the samurai was the culmination of swordsmanship. As both a Kendo and Iai-Jutsu practioner (katna swordsmanship) I would have to disagree historically speaking, raipers were more lethal than the katana. In fact protugese sailors considered it unsportsmanlike to chalange samurai to duels due to the inferiority of the Katana to the Rapier. I would like to point out that this is mainly in terms of the way the weapons were used, the Katana being a cutting weapon, while the raiper is a puncture weapon. Anyway what I propose is this. Drop the Katana etc techs. But create an advanced swordsmanship tech that would cover highly evolved forms of sword combat, ala the samuria and the fencer.
Also in terms of the Handgun technologies, these were pretty much concurent with rifle level fireams that were made at the same time, and as such I just vote to amalgamate them into the rifle sized firearms.
I also vote to get rid of Muskets or Flint lock rifles since for all practical purposes they are the same thing (I know they were matchlocks first, but in terms of game effects it would be identical)
Also the Siege engine and Catapult dichotomy seems again too overspecialized. I vote to amalgamte them or if you want a technical diference divide them into Torsion based and gravity based siege engines.
Umm.. We also need to incorporate communications techs into the military units but that will have to wait until we actually have some units...
Thats it for now
-Harli
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:13
|
|
Okay, most of them will indeed be on a 0-100 scale. Nationalism and provincialism will each have their own scale of this sort. The only link between them will be that they are some can't exceed 100. So in the start of the game both nationalism and provincialism will tend to be fairly low. Provincialism will tend to rise first, and then be eclipsed by nationalism in the age of nations. I'd envision the U.S. today as having something like nationalism 85%, provincialism 10%.
The cultures view of the best type of government simply does not fit within your scheme. This will be a multidimensional characteristic stating on average the people's preference for a particular form of government. Why don't you just skip it for now.
The cultures view of what occupations are best, will be a scale that divides up 100 points between a variety of potential occupations like Farmer, soldier, merchant, etc.. This is very important to work into the tech model IMO. It will describe the areas that the people in the civilization are most interested in improving. This will actually be a bit tricky, since there is a tie in with traditionalism. If a particular occupation is high on the social scale, but the society is very traditional, there may be very little interest in improving and because it is already "perfect the way it is". I'd like to hear what you think about how to handle this right.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Richard Bruns
|
|
NC, USA
Nov 1999
time: 06:13
|
|
Harlikwin:
Many of your concerns have already been addressed in the new tech model. I have a preliminary organization plan for the military techs, but until I get the units list I can't complete it.
The general idea in the new model is that each application comes with a certain level of a basic technology. For example:
Leather Armor: Fabric/Leather 10%
Mail Armor: Metalworking 25%
Plate Armor: Metalworking 40%, Mechanical Engineering
Spear: Woodworking 2%, Metalworking
Sword: Metalworking 20%
Longsword: Metalworking 35%
Bow: Woodworking 5%
Crossbow: Mechanical Engineering 25%
Musket: Chemistry 30%, Metalworking 30%
Rifle: Chemistry 40%, Metalworking 40%, Physics(Mechanics) 30%
Hand Grenades: Chemistry 40%
The numbers will need to be refined, but you get the idea. The specifics of tech acquisition are more complicated, but you can see that any specific unit or application you ask for will be easily put into the tech tree by giving it a certain set of prerequisites.
PS In our model, your unit abilities would increase as your level of the basic techs increase. For example, Mechanical Engineering 45% means better crossbows than the prerequisite tech level of 25%. This would mean that not all crossbowmen are identical; some would be better than others depending on the tech level of their civ.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited January 19, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Harlikwin
|
|
Re: Richard Burns
Outsdanding!
I really like this idea for a tech model. My concerns are will every civ with a certain % in a specific technology have the available advances...
I.e. I got bows at 75% does that mean I get 75% of all possible Bow units (I realize other techs are necessary for some but I'm trying to keep it simple) Or do I only get a few random (or otherwise determined) techs?
Also As for how the mil model / unit thing is going.
Way It looks now is this:
The map unit is a task force (TF) Made up of units (Rougly 5000 man units in modern era)
Each unit has a certain number of elements (Depednd on the unit) These are things like an infantry element, an artillery elemnt, a scout element, an armor element and so forth (we don't have a scale yet for elements (couple hundred guys seems likely)
What this means for the tech standpoint is alot of weapons that can be modeled.
Also we are toying with the idea of user defined tech, I.e. The musket armed charioteer... (This is going to be discussed but it is a possibility)
I like the idea of abstracting the better crosbow (etc) as a percentage, and this can pretty easily be modeled by the current comabt system (still in devlopment).
Anyway we shall try to get a list of stuff over to you guys once the system is a bit more worked out.
-Harli
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
Dear Lord
I don't wanna be so critical about your current model.(For most of it, I really have no objection. And for some, I really like the idea such as basic tech concept.)
I don't think it is fair to have a weapon like Katana which do not have much impact on other oriental Civs. You would put Katana for other oriental Civs and Rapier for European Civs. I don't think other European players would object to have a Rapier as thier weapon but Other Oriental players would be not happy to have Katana as thier weapon.
I think that to be a Civ or nation-specific unit or weapon they have to have some impact on other Civs or Nations such as Phalanx and Legion.
It is a Portugese-introduced musket that gave an edge for Japanese ground force when they invaded Korea during the 7years of war. After the war the Koreans made vigorous attempts to copy the musket not Katana.
Even in internal unification process of Japan, it is the musket which enable to accomplish such a process not Katana. With weapons like Katana I much doubt it about that the Japanese could finally got unified country(if possible in much slower phase)
Also I don't like the idea of having a unit of Samurai. Just like any other Oriental Civs(Only agriculture based economy), the main body of Japanese army was peasant conscripts called Ashigaru(literllay means foot soldier)and their main weapon were spear. Samurais were like lieutenant, captain and general for thier commanding structure. It would be weird to have a unit comprised of wholly lieutenants or captains. Their mounted force would look like samurai but they were called Kibatai(literlly means cavalry)
If you really wanna keep Katana and Samurai in your model, I suggest that you include other Ancient Oriental civs' weapons and formation.
For example;
Manchurian: 8 banner cavalry
Mongol:Magudai
Korean:Sam-Ji(Trident spear), Ironclad(surprise! World first but sailed not steam engined)
Japanese:Tetpodai(Musketeer)
Chinese:Mao,Kuk,Chang(All spears not pike as they can not fend off cavalry charge)
Ren-Nao(Closed to European ballista)
I can't think of South-East Asian weapons. sorry.
Wow, that would be some fun to other players but for some, just bunch of similar weapons in different names. Frankly, I like the idea of generalisation and simplification of weapons like just calling spear and sword or long spear and improved sword.
So if you want to have generalised terms go with it or Civ-specific that's also alright as long as you are not favouring only one Civ.
Thanks
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 24, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited January 24, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
|
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
I don't think it is fair to have a weapon like Katana which do not have much impact on other oriental Civs. You would put Katana for other oriental Civs and Rapier for European Civs. I don't think other European players would object to have a Rapier as thier weapon but Other Oriental players would be not happy to have Katana as thier weapon.
I think that to be a Civ or nation-specific unit or weapon they have to have some impact on other Civs or Nations such as Phalanx and Legion.
It is a Portugese-introduced musket that gave an edge for Japanese ground force when they invaded Korea during the 7years of war. After the war the Koreans made vigorous attempts to copy the musket not Katana.
Even in internal unification process of Japan, it is the musket which enable to accomplish such a process not Katana. With weapons like Katana I much doubt it about that the Japanese could finally got unified country(if possible in much slower phase)
-------
Ok, but can u tell me any generally used oriental weapons. I know a few pretty much were such as shurikens and beu. Here's the thing: Up until modern times, Japan, China and SE Asia will be lumped together as Oriental type civilizations for model simplicity.
Note: Although the Katana was used mostly in Japan, other oriental nations did use them.
Also I don't like the idea of having a unit of Samurai. Just like any other Oriental Civs(Only agriculture based economy), the main body of Japanese army was peasant conscripts called Ashigaru(literllay means foot soldier)and their main weapon were spear. Samurais were like lieutenant, captain and general for thier commanding structure. It would be weird to have a unit comprised of wholly lieutenants or captains. Their mounted force would look like samurai but they were called Kibatai(literlly means cavalry)
------
Here's the thing: Most european armies also didn't have huge number of Knights and relied mainly on infantry, although usually not peasant infantry.
For example;
Manchurian: 8 banner cavalry
Mongol:Magudai
Korean:Sam-Ji(Trident spear), Ironclad(surprise! World first but sailed not steam engined)
Japanese:Tetpodai(Musketeer)
Chinese:Mao,Kuk,Chang(All spears not pike as they can not fend off cavalry charge)
Ren-Nao(Closed to European ballista)
I can't think of South-East Asian weapons. sorry.
-----
Thanks. That helps. I may know someone who does.
Wow, that would be some fun to other players but for some, just bunch of similar weapons in different names. Frankly, I like the idea of generalisation and simplification of weapons like just calling spear and sword or long spear and improved sword.
-----
We are doing this because I really don't want to have this slanted toward any certain region as much as humanly possible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Youngsun
|
|
Darwin,NT,Australia
Jan 2000
time: 05:13
|
|
I believe it is so important to have a spearman element in Oriental civs in their army formation.
Generally, there were two styles of civ model in Oriental world.
One is the northern nomadic tribe style:
1.Main economy:Fur trading,stockbreeding in large scale
2.Class structure:Men=Warriors,hunters,shepherds
3.Army:All warriors are mounted!(No infantry element)
4.Government:Tribes-Divided(struggle for survival)-united(A conquering machine)
5.Culture:small or no time to cultivate(inferior to agiculture based economy)
6.Examples:Manchurian,Mongol,etc
Another is agriculture based style:
1.Main economy:specialised goods trading, vast amount of grain production
2.Class structure:Scholars,farmers,craftsmen, merchants,priests
3.Army:small number of elite standing army(Peace time)mixed with large number of peasant conscript(War time)
4.Government:Centralised(Emperor,king,shogun)
5.Culture:enough time to cultivate(rich culture)
6.Examples:China,Korea,Japan,Vietnam,Siam,etc
The power of nomadic kindoms comes from their strong cavalry force and that of more civilised kingdoms comes from sheer number of conscripts(mostly spearman). It had been a duel between the quality and quantity.
I'd like to see this aspect to be reflected in the game. Just imagine that a Mongol player assembling his hordes and waiting for right moment to attack while a Chinese player pumping out his peasant population for oncoming onslaught(ready for full mobilisation).
In present tech tree, there are pikeman and knight elements for European Civs(what a well balanced structure that is).Each element is specilised so any players would produce both of them. I mean there won't be any abandoned or ill-treated unit.
Mounted Archer would be one to be reckoned as primary unit of nomadic kingdoms but what unit for the other agriculture based Civs?
Spearman? Who would produce such a weak unit when there is a stronger unit available to produce such as Samurai?. Furthermore, having a taskforce or army group of samurai will be invincible and historically inaccurate.
The dilemma can be solved by raising the cost of maintaining a large standing army(Can be applied to both Western and Eastern Civs)
The point is that there is no standing army for the nomads since their armies do not get paid regulary so plunder is essential to boost morale whereas a standing army has to be paid and fed to maintain its discipline and morale.The regular standing army may plunder,too but that will decrease its discipline. So for other more civilised kingdoms, there will be small number of elite force with large peasant population waiting to be mobilised for whatever purpose such as grand project like building a wonder or conscription for a war.
There should be a penalty to mobilise large number of peasant for a long time such as social unrest or crop failure.
So what goodies for the nomad civ players? when there is no peasant population present to perform lots of nice things(building wonders & total defense).Conquer! Steal! Aren't they good words for them? With supeiority in military aspect, it will be fun to conquer other civilised nations.
With such a threat,the other civilised civs have spent some time to build fortifications to slow down nomads invasion.
I'd like to propose that a civs or nations can have thier own arsenal to store whatever weapons they produce such as spears,sword,Bows,etc. When army is mobilised the weapons in the arsenal will equip the conscripts. That will further reduce for the need to maintain large number of standing army.
But each weapons will need to have training requirement like:
spear:little requirement
Sword:effect reduced if non-masters use
Bow:Longer time for training
So if there is no modern trained reserve system, spear would be a good choice for raw recruits during Ancient time.
By the way, is there any world event in the game model? If not, I have some suggestion.
1.Olympics/Other sporting event
2.A World's fair/Expo
3.World conference/convention/prize/award
(Political,scientific,ecological,economic,etc)
1.Olympics/Other sporting event:
One of candidate cities will be chosen and it should be optional to take part in the game. The holding city's trade will be boosted by increase of tourists. The game results will reflect the Civs relevant tech level and social interest(more athletic interested society means more gold medals).Good results will increase the civ's status or some sort of bonus for the sociey(decreased discontent for specific period of time)
2.A World's fair/Expo
One of cities from tech-leading civs will be chosen. Also the effect of boosting Trade will be added. Competition should be held to get more score for most advanced Civs for all sorts of area of tech. Winning Civs will receive some bonus in research fields(Scientists produce more reaserch points.etc)and increase in status.
3.World conference.etc
politicians/scientists/leading coporate executives/entertainers will exchange their ideas and talk about the agenda.
The more entertainers you have, the more chance to get a award.more scientists more chance to get a prize.
Times up I have to go sorry.
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited March 05, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Krenske
|
|
Hello everyone.
I'm trying to wrap my mind around the tech system. I'll throw what I think are the basics and you can shoot them down if I am wrong.
We will have a set of basic tech areas. These will increase gradually over time. Certain developments will become available when the required levels of base knowledge are reached.
Assuming I am right so far are these tech developments automatically discovered or do they still rely on that fairly random spark of brilliance. An example of this is the wheel barrow, it requires "the Wheel", "basic Wood work" and maybe "basic physics". Most Civs would reach this stage very quickly in the game. Historically though the Wheelbarrow was a middle ages invention probably brought over from China where it was invented around 300BC. My point is that just because you have the basic knowledge to develop a device etc does not mean you get it.
Will there be a randomness factor for a development actually being accepted? (This may already have been mentioned somewhere but I do not remember seeing it.)
A follow up question is the idea of lost knowledge. The greeks developed a light hunting crossbow around 500 BC. It was not particularly powerful but the potential for improvement was there. The greeks then forgot about it and the Chinese reinvented it later followed by the Europeans. Is there a loss of knowledge concept? (It has been eluded to, but what is the process that is being looked at?)
[This message has been edited by Krenske (edited January 27, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lord God Jinnai
|
|
St. Louis
Sep 1999
time: 23:13
|
|
Assuming I am right so far are these tech developments automatically discovered or do they still rely on that fairly random spark of brilliance. An example of this is the wheel barrow, it requires "the Wheel", "basic Wood work" and maybe "basic physics". Most Civs would reach this stage very quickly in the game. Historically though the Wheelbarrow was a middle ages invention probably brought over from China where it was invented around 300BC. My point is that just because you have the basic knowledge to develop a device etc does not mean you get it.
-----
You right and wrong. Things still have certain levels for discovery, but just because u meat that level doesn't mean u've discovered it. When u reach that level u have a chance of discovering, modified upwards if u've discovered some relavant, but not essentail application techs. As the basic techs increase, the chance goes up till it reaches 100%.
Also item/improv/structures are developed seperatly. So just because u might have "automotive technolgoy" doesn't mean u automatically get cars and trucks, but they have a slightly higher prereq, but not too much. BTW the wheelbarrel would also be considered an item.
------
Will there be a randomness factor for a development actually being accepted? (This may already have been mentioned somewhere but I do not remember seeing it.)
------
It hasn't until the above paragraph.
-----
A follow up question is the idea of lost knowledge. The greeks developed a light hunting crossbow around 500 BC. It was not particularly powerful but the potential for improvement was there. The greeks then forgot about it and the Chinese reinvented it later followed by the Europeans. Is there a loss of knowledge concept? (It has been eluded to, but what is the process that is being looked at?)
------
Definatly. First off to be a "lost tech" u need to have discovered it first. Once that is achieved so long as u keep the all ness areas at or above the prereq mark they won't be lost. However, if it drops below, u don't automatically loose it, but u can't develope any more if its an item/improv/structure. If its an application tech like genetics, ur people don't quite understand it, but because of old documents lying around they know it exists and understand a little about it. Basic techs that have other basic tech prereq. will begin to drop rapidly if this happes. I'd say to show this we could increase the rate of increasing the tech levels by 1% by multiplying the end result by 10, then if they actually would be able to go to the next percentage, they can't, but instead just stay the same. If things continue to decline, ur ability to repair and maintain becomes worse and worse until the amount u understand it reaches 0, in which case it is then considered "lost." "Lost" techs must be redisovered as if they were never before discovered. However if ur tech levels rise up at/above the prereq. before the tech becomes "lost," u can once again use it normally.
------------------
One a differnt note:
Will it be too complicated to impliment decimal points for the % system, ie 25.43 (no further)? Both me and rich perfer this over integer model, but if its too complicated we'll leave it at integers.
Also, if anyone has any items/improv/structures they want to be put on in the game, please respond.
items: weapons, carts, statues, cars, planes, etc.
improv: anything that improvs a civ that could be seen from the surface other than structures (also anything below the surface that may have similar counterparts) Irrigation, canals, sewer systems, etc.
stuctures: buildings mainly. These don't have to be surface oriented. They can be in the air, water, space, or below ground.
We might put out our new model soon to help with this area, however it will lack social advances prob for now as these will have to be very much intigrated with the cultural model.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
F_Smith
|
|
Austin, Tx 78728
May 1999
time: 05:13
|
|
Mark:
That makes sense. Altho (and probably because I'm more a real-time/wargame/tactical-type player/programmer) I still feel that a reliance on numbers is the wrong way to go.
Personally, I don't like being told "Unit X has 90% experience". I prefer something like "Unit X is a veteran unit". The numbers, to me, are just too sterile and un-specific. You have to memorize what each % means. For a behind-the-scenes system like overall tech ability, I guess it's okay, but I would still prefer a more specific, realistic approach. Something along the lines of:
[*]You have 15 universities engaged in research. One of those has had a breakthru and mastered atomic physics (see weapons labs).
[*]You have 35 type-4 steel mills. They are somewhat experienced at producing steel, and are beginning to find ways to make steel lighter and stronger (level 3 steel is approx 1 year away).
[*]You have 2 weapons research labs. They have both mastered ballistics, and are now beginning to understand how to make a nuclear fission bomb (level 1 nuke bomb approx 2 years away).
[*]You have a thriving electronics industry. They have mastered the public electric lighting, and are now working on 'television camera'.
[*]You have 3 fledgling aircraft manufacturers. They have mastered simple flight, and are now beginning to explore basic aerodynamics (level 2 flight is 5 years away).
[/list]
I usually prefer specifics over aggregate statistics. Behind the scenes it can be handled any way you think best. But to enhance game playing, I would like the model design to be focused on the player, not the number-crunching game engine. Instead of %s, I'd give each 'level' a name and a realistic effect. Not just a % better chance to win.
But again, this is just my mind tossing it's cookies onto a page.
(They should probably know better than to give me an internet connection at work!)
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-01-2000 11:07
I will try to come up with a list in the next few days. Feel free to bug me if the time goes by and I still haven't produced 
|