18-02-2000 04:57									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

F. Smith:

I strongly support Richard and LGJ on this... IMO we just simply cannot have a "connections" type model for Clash. For one thing, what you seem to be looking for is extremely contrary to Clash's the-player-is-the-leader perspective. What leaders really understand, if they understand anything about technology, are level three and level four technologies in the current model. The things that give their civilizations real practical power. Perhaps our nomenclature is a bit screwed up, but so what. When we show it to the players we will think of sexy names for all these things. The approach being potentially too dry is certainly a legitimate criticism. I think the only way we are going to practically address that is in playtesting. If it turns out to be too dry, I think it will be easy enough to put more excitement in this basic framework. If necessary we can make applications themselves helper techs for the level one through three techs. It would make the system less flexible, but would capture some of the issues you are concerned about.

Axi:

Your list certainly does have better coverage in some areas than the existing model. Thanks for putting it up. Hopefully adding in some of the stuff you part will make the model a bit better.

Richard:

Your patch on my effectiveness idea strikes me as extremely reasonable...

	18-02-2000 05:39									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

F_Smith:

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.
-----
What ur saying right here is that the government employees the inventors. This may be the case on occasion, but overall that's wrong.

Also ur wrong about them using theory at the most basic level. At the most basic level they use trail and error. You'd have a tough case saying that's using theory.


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
-----
How so? Math is one of the most important factors in science, economy, some religions, everyday life. The increased knowledge of mnth allows us to understand more. Without a high level of math we'd not understand physics as well as we do.

I'm wondering if ur just mainly complaining about the "label" of tech for everything? If so, that's fine. Give us some specific remedies for naming problem, remembering that level 3 and 4 are simply names the comp will see, not the player.


. 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.
-----
There will be "objects and behaviors" as you call them, but humanities (as it is called now) and the fine arts do advance. There are more advanced philosophies than others, same for religions, etc. The differnce is these aren't "techs" as u like to say, they are "advances" and they are heavily culturally oridented. If ur culture has a set mind against freedom, things like human rights, democracy, etc. will be improbable/impossinle to get, even if ur 50% points above the min rq. While I'm at it there will need to be a way to keep from a "flood" of new humanities and fine arts advances in the wake of a cultural change, otherwise they player would get too much way too fast.

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
-----
I think Mark and Rich have said everything i can.

Also other than Rich's brief comment i wanted to know what people thought of the social advances part of the model i post and what could be done better.

	18-02-2000 18:15									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You know guys, what I expected as a reaction to my list was a barrage of cries, grumbles and complaints, asking one of the following questions:

• Why {tech1} is not included?
  
• Shouldn't {tech2} level up (down)?
  
• Shouldn't {tech3} go under {tech4}?
  
• Do we really need {tech5}?
  
• What is the difference between {tech6} and {tech7}?
  
• If {tech8} is included, why {tech9} is not?
  
• The level# techs, shouldn't they be more (less)?
  
• Shouldn't we split (merge) {tech10} and {tech11}?
  

This way we would improve the list and, having these fields of knowledge well defined, we could go on configuring the helper techs, the percentages the applications and finally the effects of each item in Clash. (It's a lot of work but don't worry, some of it is already done in the previous model.)

What I get instead is a discussion about the distinction between theory and technology (or something like that). In that matter, I have to side with Mark and LGJ. Consider the following:

There are many different levels of theory. An example from my field of expertees: "Analysis of thermal turboengines" is a theory, but also an application of "Fluid mechanics", which is a theory too, but also an application of another, more fundamental theory, "Calculus". In my faculty students are taught both 3 theories, so that, when working in industry, they will be able to handle the application "turboengines" in a scientific way, complimenting the work of the technicians. Very few fields of knowledge are purely theories or applications; most of them are both in some extent. If we also consider the various interconnections between theories and applications, the thing gets too complicated to describe by simply dividing the items into theory and technology.

What do we do? We make a tree of items that influence each other in an interactive way, without defining a theory-application relationship, but only implying it, by the nature of the items and by the structure of the tree. In reality applications affect the advance of theories as much as theories help advance applications and so it goes with the tech tree: The player should be able to advance with direct funding only items in level 4 and, gradually, also in level 3 (maybe even level 2 in some cases). The resources thus allocated not only advance the desired item but they also dissipate in order to advance higher levels, which can subsequently lead to other related level 4 advances as well. This represents not only the formation of theories to fit the applications pursued, but also the various interconnections between techs. On the other hand, knowlwedge is also created unconciously within a civ as a result of it's characteristics, it's preoccupations, it's mentality, it's relations with other civs, in other words from the civilisational environment. This is not under the direct control of the player although it eventually depends on his own policies and geographic conditions. These RPs flow from above in the Way Richard has described and place themselves chiefly on level 1 and 2 advances (sometimes even on level 3), leading in an automatic raise in all affected items. Due to the nature of the interconnections, these resources will flow downwards, resulting to applications.

Imagine the tech tree as a net pulled upwards from various knots simultaneously: the whole net is raised according to it's local connections with the knots being pulled. We could also parallel applications with fish caught in the net, coming to surface as the net is pulled. Theoretic research would then amount to pulling up the whole net, instead of trying to pick up the fish...

(There's something fishy in this parable, isn't it? )

Anyway, I initially wanted to add some explanatory details about each tech but it was too much work and I also thought that it would look a little ugly, so I left it unfinished, but if you would like clarifications, I can edit my list.

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

	18-02-2000 18:31									#34
	Increase Your PM Length

I have little time but IŽll try to make my ideas clear, with as little chit-chat as possible :-)

Tech Model/structure
I agree we shouldnŽt worry to much about the names we are giving things right now (call them theories/techs etc). As far as I am concerned the way to get the right simulation of effects of things like theories vs skills and the "language development" does not depend on changing the structure you presented. The tech model as is gives an excellent frame to create the necessary interdependencies between different techs/theories/skills (read this in terms of your tech levels). It is in the detail of this interdependencies and in the ways the player will be able to intervene that the simulation will succeed.
When I commented and agreed with F_Smith I meant that some care should exist in determining the relations between the different techs so that things like theoretical vs skill dynamics (basically level 1/2 vs lv 3 techs) are properly simulated. That was why I gave the examples of the roman joke about greeks thinking and romans making things, and the fact that much of the portuguese exploration in XV cent was made with a pragmatic/experience relied knowledge (high level 3 tech) without a solid theoretical development (vs comparatively low level 1/2 techs).
Anyway if I understood Richard well the different tech levels will interact continuously so, I will repeat, IMO it just depends on good number tweeking and not on a model restructuring.

Bottom line - IMO your on the right track, the model allows for a wonderfull flexibility, just wanted you to consider the theoretical vs skill discussion when the number crunching is made.

	18-02-2000 18:55									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Axi

Just read your post (after I wrote mine).
I suppose you said it all in what it relates to the theory vs skill discussion.

	18-02-2000 19:25									#36
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Henrique:

I understand you now. Unfortunately, we probably won't be able to model the ability to make things without knowing the underlying theory. It would create uneven gameplay if you could easily advance the Level 3 techs without having a good understanding of higher level techs. But don't forget that Level 1 techs are basically free if you manage your civ well.

Level 2 techs are a cross between knowledge and theory. They are not simply a less important Level 1 tech. They combine theory and practice and are an even split between the other two. So in your example, the Portugese would have decent Level 2 techs.

Axi:

IMO we are not the people to dictate the Level 3 techs. My goal is to create a good Level 1 and 2 framework for the other model people to attach stuff to. They know what Level 3 techs are needed for the game models they are making, so the Level 3 should belong to them, not us. For example, your tech tree did not include many of the Disease and Disaster techs that Toubabo_Koomi said were needed.

For these reasons, any quibbling we do about the Level 3 techs would be fairly pointless.

Toubabo_Koomi:

I haven't forgotten about your techs. It would help thigs a bit if you were to give an approximate date that you expect civs to be able to acquire the techs.

	18-02-2000 19:50									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

** Warning **
(This post has been rated "B" for Boring by the people that rate those things.)
Idiot programmer ramblings most folks will not be interested in!!!

I'm sorry again. I'm sure this is 'too many cooks' syndrome on my part. This is ya'lls game, and I should just back off. I have a very programmer-oriented approach to analysis and design of programs and systems, that others are not always going to share.

Ya'lls system should play very much like the one in 'Masters of Orion II', which is fine. It'll work. I don't think it's the best, but it will be fine.

My greatest frustration is in that I just don't think I'm able to communicate, here. It is certainly my fault, my approach is too wonkish, my descriptions too object-oriented. This isn't a matter of words or titles -- it's one of basic object-oriented analysis. The interactions of the different parts of the system (the objects). This is beyond what ya'll have so far. Ya'll are in the 'analysis' phase right now. I just strongly believe that good analysis should start with identifying objects needed then mapping their behaviors, rather than later try and convert a system over into object-oriented code. Many, many times I have run into coding difficulties because Managers took this type of analytical approach with the clients. Its the norm in my company, where old Cobol architects and clients get together to design systems with procedural expectations and then expect us to implement them. We always throw out their analysis and start over again with the basic requirements, then floor them with results far beyond what they thought possible. Because the goal of OOA/OOD is to model reality smoothly and in a user-friendly manner. It *is* possible, and happens every day, as I'm sure many of you know.

I guess I should just drop it for good. I'm sorry, my fault. I just love to discuss this kind of thing. I think that's why I became a programmer.

It was just that I so urge you to reconsider several of ya'lls basic assumptions. My outside analysis of this approach is that -- it seems no less complicated than a 'connections' type system (it actually seems more complicated), 'StarCraft' style approaches do not break down upon scaling (I have tested this), and this system is in no way more conducive to a 'the player is the leader' interface (the UI makes them play similarly).

Perhaps later this year, ya'll can take a look at my other project and compare. (Mark, you probably remember the basic Real-time user interface I showed you last year?) The tech system is about half in place, and it is smooth, mindless and very, very playable. I will play ya'lls game, when finished. I'm sure it will be fun. I just sincerely hope you all will check out mine, too, to at least give it a chance.

You see, I am assuming that when the programmer really starts to do the actual 'design' on this system in object-oriented code, it's possible that the coder is going to begin to come across some of these issues. That person will need to define the objects that will interact, and give those object behaviors, as I'm sure ya'll know. I just always start my analysis with that in mind. And when ya'll get to that point, perhaps, whoever is doing the coding will see me as something other than a hopeless, idiot wonk (altho I am that too!). But a few tweaks to this system, with the OOD of the final program in mind, can gain ya'll power, flexibility and realism that you will not have if you don't consider program design.

Okay. Sermon over. The soap box is open. I will now go back into my cave until the next solar eclipse. I actually will be busy this weekend with real life, so I won't be bothering ya'll, distracting the discussion. Thanks for listening, and thanks for not throwing fruit.

Again, I'm sorry. Please don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

	18-02-2000 20:47									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

F_Smith

As far as I am concerned please keep posting,
there is no improvement without confrontation of different ideas (just look at politics and the imposed death of ideologies nowdays)
By the way I still havenŽt read something idotic from you, there may be difficulties in comunication but that works both for the receptor as well as the emissor :-)

Anyway I am not a programmer but I research natural systems (geologist)...read COMPLEX systems, and even admiting my ignorance (not as total as it may seem) in programming, I have found complex systems very difficult to reproduce in a "strict" object oriented approach. By object oriented approach I mean procceding to a "taxonomic" classification of what your dealing with keeping in mind your objective of characterizing the relations between the different objects.
I find frequently that frontiers between different objects are very hard to deffine - a flexible "classification" as to be made.
A subjective decision takes place when I have to put element A and B in different groups/objects despite their pontual similarities.
To acomplish reasonable results I rely on detailed characterization of the relations of as many singular identities as I can. I group those singular identities according to the "flexible" classification I made, interpretation/simulation is strongly helped by that classification but dependends allways on the researcherŽs awareness the every "single element" is unique and can not be "boxed" and forgotten.

Trying to reproduce technological/scientific development in human societies is a REALLY COMPLEX problem.


What I am trying to say is that I saw in the tech models apparently "light" approach, in terms of hierarchy of "tech elements", that "flexible classification" that allows you to allways solve problems like - I know maths is more important than that it just doesnŽt fit very well anywhere else.
As long as care is taken when chosing and characterizing techs and their relations you will probably work it out.

I will only say another small thing, I am all for the actual models approach (which by the way I donŽt see how it can be similar to Master of Orion 2) but it will never work if the techs arenŽt well chosen and their relations, no matter how complex, arenŽt properly worked out.


Richard

minimum requirements for the invention of a new application vs minimum requirements for the use of an "imported" application.
This would allways be application related.

"your legions get that iberic sword (Gladius)(swordmaking 78%), your swordmaking is 50% allows you to understand the techniques behind the manufacture of the gladius, as the gladius as a base rating swordmaking 78%, the simple fact that you have the new sword will boost your swordmaking tech, to the minimum gladius requiremnt, in the following years as you already have acquired a "working prototype".

Also according to inter tech level relations, the acquisition of a new application will boost lower level techs (which is realistic)
inability to raise lower level techs to the point of sustainability of the new aplication may result in the "tech loss" consequence.

You could call it the "working prototype effect"

The "working prototype effect" should be per application.

	18-02-2000 20:58									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Richard

Just noticed some misspellings/confusions/bad grammar:

"your legions get that iberic sword (Gladius)(swordmaking 78%), your swordmaking is 50% allows you to understand the techniques behind the manufacture of the gladius, as the gladius as a base rating swordmaking 78%, the simple fact that you have the new sword will boost your swordmaking tech, to the minimum gladius requiremnt, in the following years as you already have acquired a "working prototype".

By boost see it as a bonus to the research in the specific application - not an instantaneous tech upgrade. Something similar to: make a large telescope - get x RP per turn on astronomy.

------------------
"Also according to inter tech level relations, the acquisition of a new application will boost lower level techs (which is realistic)
inability to raise lower level techs to the point of sustainability of the new aplication may result in the "tech loss" consequence."

I just saw that you call higher level techs to what I called lower level techs :-)

Also by tech loss I also mean loss of the prototype effect (just have to keep on beating those Celtiberians and getting a those swords)

	18-02-2000 21:04									#40
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

CanŽt keep quiet today :-)

F_Smith

If youŽre thinking about biology being a natural science and that they made up a taxonomic classification for all living beings just remember that it took them thousands of years to make up something decent (I donŽt think we have that much time :-)) and that they are able to do direct observations of their object of study...something that any "historical" science isnŽt able to do.

	18-02-2000 21:30									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

HEY! LOOK AT THE LIST! IT HAS MUTATED!
(showing upwards, his hand trembling with fear )

I couldn't wait for you to ask me, could I?

Richard Bruns: If I have found 96 level 3 techs by myself, how many will they be if everyone inserts his own? Anyway, as I have already said, the tree is under constant revision. I believe that in order to define it's precise form in level 3 is to start mounting the applications.



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

	19-02-2000 10:48									#42
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Henrique:

I'll probably have to make this my last offering for the week, but by 'OOD' I mean defining objects/pieces of the system first, then using those objects to build a system. To design a car you have to know it needs tires, pistons, and a body -- and you have to know what tires, pistons and a body *are*, how they act. Because the objects are the system. Otherwise, it's like assembling that kid's bike the night before Xmas without making sure you have all the pieces.

For example, as I understand it, what has been proposed here has been the requirements-gathering part of the software development life-cycle. Then the first step in OOA will be analyzing and listing the types of objects needed, something like "First, we have 4 types of tech objects, and they will look like this".

Then you map each object in UML style, all inheriting from a base 'tech' object. You give each one instance variables and public methods / behaviors (without fleshing out implementations), defining the interaction of all the objects.

Then you start on the actual object design, designing the actual private methods that will do the work in each object.

Finally, you code.

For a lame, quick example, of what has so far been proposed as base requirements, they will have to begin something like defining a basic tech object (possibly an abstract class) --

Object: Technology

Instance Vars:
String name
float level
Vector techs_affected;

Public Methods:
addTechAffected(Tech t)
getTechsAffected()
addName(String n)
getName()
setLevel(float l)
getLevel()

------------

After this point, you tackle the specific 4 types of 'tech' objects they have proposed:

FieldsOfKnowledge
GeneralTechnology
SpecificTechnology
ApplicationTechnology

You define those, as above (instance vars, public methods). They must inherit from the base Technology class, if you have defined them as Technologies (the rule is "is a" inherits, "has a" gets an instance variable).

And then you define the 'interfaces' for these objects:

Research
TechGain
TechLoss

And on, and on. This is the very *beginning* of the analysis and design process. Because as you begin to flesh out these objects, many difficult decisions arise which will greatly affect the end product. And you will begin to see that the objects define the system themselves.

If you don't let the objects define the system, you will always have to force things, and you will miss functionality you could have otherwise had. Which is not the end of the world, but will cost you power and flexibility. It will cost you options.

And before anyone else says it can't be done, be careful -- someone soon might prove them wrong. Soon.

	18-02-2000 23:08									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Henrique:

P.S -- in Masters of Orion 2, the player selected his next research goal from one of 6 'fields of knowledge'. Each field of knowledge held 3 techs per 'level'. If your civ was 'creative', you got all 3 when you researched that level. If not, you only got one application. So the system had most of the things ya'll have -- fields of knowledge, general techs (the levels) and application techs. Ya'll have added a new intermediate detail level, but that will be transparent to the Player.

In Clash, it appears that the player will do very much the same thing he does in MoO2, unless I miss my guess. Altho the algorithm behind the scenes will be different, and there will be bonuses that cross over. But this will all be transparent to the player. And MoO2 was a fine game, don't get me wrong.

I just so much more enjoy the StarCraft/Age of Empires/Civilization/Alpha Centauri approach behind the scenes, personally. And the industry seems to have migrated to that, away from pure numbers. They are much more fun, in my experience, and in actual practical application have not turned out to be impossible to deal with on a large scale -- especially with 'managers' that allow a player to simply select goals.

Someone just *has* to prototype this, before you lock it in as *the* decision. How can you be sure how it will play if you haven't tried it? Altho, as I said, if it is just like MoO2, as my sample suggested, it will be fine. That was an okay game.

Not the best, but okay.

	19-02-2000 00:12									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Henrique:

That's why I love this board -- it helps me to iron out and learn to talk about exactly these kinds of issues. This is going to help me in my job, big-time.

I had lunch with one of our System Architects, and I discussed this with him. He felt that your example of the taxonomic classifications was in fact the perfect illustration of OOA.

To whit:
To model all 'animal' life forms, one approach could be to do a large, taxonomic tree (much like the current 'tech' system being proposed). This tree will be huge, and never finished.

Or, you can do OOA --

Object: Creature

Instance Variables:
String name
Vector cells
Object DNA
Date date_of_birth

Public Methods:
birth()
growth()
death()
damage()

Then all you need to do is define the DNA class to handle all the different growths possible, and you have a simple, 2 object model that reflects every possible creature in the universe -- including their lifecycles. This is obviously more powerful than a taxonometric 'tree'.

This is the perfect example of the need for OOA. I thank you very much, this is an invaluable thing, for me.

Oh, and for the record, Alfred (the SysArchitect) feels that if ya'll don't do the OOA now, the person that codes this later will really wish you had . . . and sometimes the problems that arise can be fatal to the project.

	19-02-2000 02:33									#45
	Increase Your PM Length

F_Smith

Taxonomy works very well for biology...then why is it such an headache to do a similarly good job in Paleontology?

Hint
The object of study of Biology and Paleontology is similar (albeit in the second the poor thingies are long gone :-))
Yet paleontology has to deal with a large time scale, which also means evolution, which also means much added complexity.

If you can explain to me (in as simple way as possible) how to simulate strong complexity, with plenty of unknown variables influencing the end product, plenty of interconnections, etc, through OOA, I will be happy. Because honestly I still do not see how OOA can do that efficiently (it feels too limiting for complex systems)

By the way, I also have a professional interest in this particular issue - modelation of complex systems (natural geological systems in particular)

Second thought that just occured to me. Did you think about why you could translate Taxon to OOA - You used DNA information - do you know how much theoretical work, Lab work, discussion underlies the definition of those strings of numbers? DNA reflects pretty complex information and IMO that is why your example works. By the way If you tried to fill in the variables in your objects you would find out that most DNA information of known life forms is totally unknown!

	19-02-2000 03:21									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

LOOK! IT DID IT AGAIN!
(points upwards, his teeth clattering with fear )

Henrique and F_Smith:
This object oriented programming discussion has made me feel completely stupid, since I am unable to grasp a thing about it.
I suspect that Mr. Smith is implying that we are doing it all wrong, but still...

I am getting pretty angry with myself about this...


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

	19-02-2000 03:36									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Axi

Despite not being a programmer, IMO the tech model guys are on the right track, even if latter they come up with programming problems! (IMO there is no use in having easy programming and then ending up with a lousy simulation)

Anyway I have plenty of comments (specially about social/religion and Earth sciences) but I am waiting for the synthesis that Richard must be doing right now...

IŽll keep watching the forum, I like this topic :-)

	19-02-2000 03:45									#48
	Inflate your Upload Space

Henrique:

OOA is specifically for modelling complex systems. It was invented and originally used for AI programming, to model real-world systems.

Here's the simplest example I can think of -- with 4 objects (atom, electron, neutron, proton) you can model every single thing in the world.

Similarly, in botany and paleontology, you can model any animal with 2 objects -- creature and DNA. Yes, the DNA has many complex methods that are not fully known. But that is how they exist in the real world. So I would say, from a 'design' standpoint, that taxonomy does not work well for botanists. It can not predict, only classify, and it requires a huge database. It is a very complex, non-user-friendly system. Of course, as you said, botanists can't exactly just measure the exact state of a life form yet, so it might be the best they have, for the moment. But someday, that taxonometric tree will be replaced by DNA 'fingerprints' of each life form.

Wouldn't you agree that this would simplify identification of a life form -- just sample it's DNA and look up the data?

Axi:

In software development (which is of course what ya'll are engaged in), this stage you are going thru is called 'Requirements Gathering', or 'Requirements Definition'. You need to be identifying the objects needed to write the system into code. Once you have identified the objects, they will write the interactions themselves, so to speak. Ya'll seem to be on to defining interactions and defining instances of the objects (specific techs) without ever having discussed or outlined what the exact objects will be, or what those object's behaviors will be.

This type of OOA is going to be absolutely necessary once coding begins, or else whomever is doing the coding will write spaghetti (and, under many circumstances, be unable to complete the task without some redesign).

The end point is to make a system more simple and at the same time more powerful. This tech system seems to boil down 4 objects, each with behaviors ya'll haven't modelled, which can interact in ways ya'll haven't considered yet. And the designers seem to be rejecting this behavior because it doesn't fit into their tree.

But maybe that's fine. It is only a game, and can be fun no matter what. This is only me, rambling about software development. I am not exactly a genius (just ask my wife!).

	19-02-2000 04:02									#49
	Increase Your PM Length

F_Smith

I think I am not being able to transmit what I mean by complexity. Any science that deals with the time variable (any kind of historical sciences, ex: either History or Geology) as a complexity problem that goes way behond the DNA/atom etc approach. Now add to that human interaction and my brain starts to boil!

I really would like to know if this discussion is in any way usefull for the tech folks because they will be doing the hard work and if we continue this on our own we will be monopolizing the forum and no profit will come of this!

P.S. If you want to, post your e-mail/write to mine, and I will try to give you a concrete high complexity example from geology and see how you would approach it with OOA, maybe this would spare the eyes of the forum folks :-)

	19-02-2000 05:18									#50
	Increase the size of your Attachments

F_Smith:

Even though I cannot understand what is qualified as an object and what isn't, or what instances and interactions are, you are probably right.

[Mark_Everson_mode-on]
Maybe you could help us with the OOD of the technology system. Clash is in desperate need of coders. What do you say, huh?
Pleeeease..! Pretty pretty pleeeease?
[Mark_Everson_mode-off]

You are in the Clash Team anyway, aren't you? (oddly enough under inactive members; you don't seem very inactive to me though...)


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

[This message has been edited by axi (edited February 18, 2000).]

	19-02-2000 07:26									#51
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Wow, there have been a lot of posts. I'll add what I can.

1) I have been approaching this using my Math Modeling experience. I'm not a programmer, but I do have some feel for what systems will work. My experience has told me that the use of variables deetermined by continuous equations is an accurate and mostly foolproof way of modeling complex things.

2) The input from a programmer is very helpful in the model creation process. Your views are helpful, F_Smith.

3) I am still convinced that a system composed of a lot of discrete techs will fail. It works fine for small scales, but at the level of detail we are talking about, a person would have to remember a chain of at least a two dozen technologies for every current application you want to research toward. Trying to navigate through this bramble would be an awful mess. Maybe F_Smith has the brainpower to do this, but no one else does.

4) Creating and debugging a tree like this would be a ghastly experience. We would probably end up with situations where one tech is required for something it is not related to at all. The tree would be almost impossible to learn and deal with. Perhaps one of the reasons that all commercial games have such simplistic and silly tech systems is that they all use this kind of system. It simply does not allow for depth or complexity.

5) I have an odd analogy that may help people think of the system in a new way. This tech system is quite similar to the system that makes RPG characters grow and become more powerful. The way that an RPG character gains levels is analogous to the way the Clash player would gain techs.

Imagine that each character is a Level 2 technology. That character is steadily gaining levels as they gain experience. You get experience every time you fight or use that character. Similarly, you get RP's from your civ that go toward increasing the percentage of Level 2 techs. The level of your characters determines how well they do many things, just like Level 2 techs influence your civ's ability do do things.

Each character has many statistics like Strength or Intellegence. Imagine that these are Level 3 techs. These attributes are influenced by the level of the character. As the character 'levels up' and gains more experience these attributes can increase. But some RPG's also have you raising these stats individually. Casting a spell increases your Intellegence score, using a weapon increases your Strength, etc. Similarly, you increase these secondary tech levels but they also depend on the level of the primary tech.

In RPG's there are many skills and tools you can use. These often require a certain level of some attribute. For example, a certain axe might require a strength of 20 to use or a certain spell might require an intellegence of 30. These weapons and spells are similar to the applications in Clash. The similarity continues; in RPG's the level of your attribute influences how effective the tools are; a spell is more powerful if your Intellegence is greater. Applications in Clash also get more powerful in this fashion.

The levels of RPG characters are governed by equations similar to the equations we have for the many techs. The level of a skill is determined by the character level and the amount the skill is used. It can also be influenced by other factors, like a magic item or spell. The skills make the character more effective and a certain level of the skills allows the character to do new things. This is a lot like the way the tech model works.

RPG players know that this type of system works pretty well and makes for a good gameplay experience. It does a good job of modeling character skill growth and is fun to work with. There are enough variables that the system is complex and fun, but it is not difficult to work with and it is easy to understand. And RPG's can easily involve hundreds of items, spells, and skills.

This kind of system has been proven to be robust and popular. It has none of the flaws of the civ type tech trees and players like it.

It also can't be too difficult to program and implement, because RPG's, and complex ones at that, have been make for many, many years and they can run on things as simple as an old NES.

So we are not trying something new or impossible. We are doing something that is a proven success, even if the context and specifics are different.

By the way, I wasn't thinking of any of this when I was actually working on the model. It just occured to me. But it is interesting how we ended up producing a system that is so similar to RPG's.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited February 18, 2000).]

	19-02-2000 09:37									#52
	Put an end to popups!

Richard,
Here are some (very) non-specific approximates of where the techs fall. I hope this helps, I'm just going to be too busy for the next several days to put anything more specific up.

Disaster Model Techs:
Seismology
Meteorology
Volcanology (not sure if this is a true science, but I’m certain I’ve heard the term before)
Pesticides
Insecticides
Refrigeration
Waste Disposal (toxic waste and biohazard waste)
Genetic Engineering
Entomology


Disease Model Techs:
Quarantine / mid to late Renaissance
Vaccinations / mid-20th century
Inoculations / mid to late Renaissance
Pesticides
Insecticides
Sewer Systems / Iron Age (Romans had ‘em)
Water Treatment Plants (an application / infrastructure)
Genetic Engineering
Pasteurization / mid-20th century
Refrigeration / mid-20th century
Entomology

Everything else is pretty much mid to late 20th century

	19-02-2000 21:39									#53
	Got spare money?

LGJ:

Some feedback on your arts side of the tech tree... IMO things like the level two technology Music--- having level 3 of Harmony, Instruments, Song is huge overkill. If you want to include Harmony etc. I would put them as level 4 applications simply because otherwise they, and things like them, fill up 10 or more of the limited level 3 slots. I do not think many players will have affinity with these areas, and that the 10 slots would be much better spent on things in the military or other areas where a lot of players would be more interested. I am with you in that I would like a well rounded tech tree. However, since level 3 is supposed to be tied directly into the interface, we need to be extremely judicious in what goes in there. Too much stuff to have to evaluate at this level will simply overwhelmed the player IMO. I'm actually fairly certain that in playtesting we will end up moving many things out of level 3, and other things in, as it becomes apparent what people are most interested in using. I have copied my suggestion of how to have tech-like applications (level 4) below...

the stuff below the arts in your model looks fine to me. As the models that impact those areas most get developed, obviously we may need to revise things.

TK:

I have the same thing to say as to LGJ. Although I agree that most of the stuff you bring up should be in there in some way, I think you have far too many level 3 things. Here's something I said to Henrique awhile ago on the same topic. Perhaps with good interface design we can get around these issues, but for now I think the more prudent course is to try and keep the level 3 stuff to a minimum...

Needless to say I'm just one voice here, and we may need to discuss this further.

quote: 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.

	20-02-2000 05:09									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Mark,
They weren't meant to be level 3 techs, regardless of what level they are however, they are important to the models. And also I'm sure some will be used by other models also.

Richard,
Another one is epidemiology, which can probably fall under some other medical tech, but if not...

	21-02-2000 02:28									#55
	Full PM-box? Change here!

One general comment that I have is that I think Engineering deserves its own level 1 technology. It is At Least as fundamental as physics, biology, and the rest. And probably much more important through the vast period before fundamental sciences came into their own. Basically IMO we should lose Construction as a level one tack, and make the things that used to be in construction under engineering. The things formerly under construction should go under the headings of Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, etc.

One question. Do we still have a way to give arbitrary bonuses to applications? For instance in the agricultural area I have an "Improved Crops" Application. The idea is that as your grains and other foodstuffs get better, this will boost your agricultural productivity. One of the killer items in this sort of technology is something like the potato. If you don't have the potato, and discover it someplace else, it can give a huge boost to this application. It's not really a slowly improving thing as many of the other applications are, it is mostly a one-shot thing. The best way it seems to me to handle this is to give Improved Crops a sizable bonus when you discover the potato. It would be a direct bonus to effectiveness, kind of like the "inventor bonus" we were talking about a while ago. What do the technology guys and others think about this? I really think we need some sort of bonus or negative modifier that can be arbitrarily put on applications.

now, on to my proposal for the economics technology tree structure! This is already going to be enormous just covering the basic areas of food, resources, production, and services. If I get that far, I will be happy. Infrastructure will simply have to wait for another day.

I'm Certain I've missed some important stuff here. I also doing this according to my concept of what the most recent agreed approach to level for technologies is. If I'm wrong we can fit what I have into whatever turns out to be the correct model. I have also assumed here that technologies that are not available at the start run on the same scale as the rest of them. So, and the way I think it should be done, there is no Explosives 0%. Explosives would start with the effective use of Gunpowder and might be something like the 20% level. The advantage of doing it this way is that the scales are still the same for all technologies. LGJ and I have been discussing this for some time, and as far as I know we haven't reached an official conclusion... so I am just going to go with my preference here.

Numbers after a technology indicate required percentages and how important it is to the other technology or application. That is the strength of the connection. So for instance a listing of requisites for a level for a technology of Civil Engineering 5% 3 means that the required level is 5%, and the strength is three. For applications I'll also list the longevity. If there is a technology that I want to use as a prerequisite, but that I don't see anywhere, I will precede it with an "?". I have also taken the liberty of using some level 4 applications as requisite technologies for other level 4 applications. The strikes me as a lot simpler in some cases, but we need to discuss if this is the way we want to do it.

Food Area
level 2 Agriculture (Biology, Earth Sciences)
level 3 Farming (Agriculture 9, Mechanical Engineering 1)
Level 4 Irrigation (Farming 5% 5 Civil Engineering 5% 3, Management 5% 3, Mechanical Engineering 3% 2) longevity 5
Level 4 Improved Crops (Farming 0% 3, Breeding/Genetics 0% 5) Longevity 10
Level 4 Plows [Light Soil] (Farming 0% 2, Mechanical Engineering 2% 2, ?Draft Animals 0% 5) longevity 3
Level 4 Heavy Plows [Critical for Heavy Soils] (Plows 10% 4, Metallurgy 10% 10 (for Ironworking)) Longevity 3
Level 4 Early Agricultural Machines (farming 30% 2, Mechanical Engineering 15% 3) longevity 3
Level 4 Farm Machinery (Farming 45% 3, Engines 40% 4) Longevity 3
Level 4 Crop Rotation (Farming 0% 3, Agriculture 0% 5) Longevity 5

Other Level 4 Applications will be Fertilizers & Pesticides, "modern farming" (computerization, better weather forecasting, etc.) and Possibly Specialization (Cash Crops...)
Also need a level 4 technology of Drainage somewhere, maybe under Civil Engineering

So the basic way this is going to work, is when you want to improve your, say agricultural sector, the game will come up with an average cost per unit improvement based on the levels in the above technologies. The average effectiveness of those technologies will go into figuring out the "technology level" of the agriculture sector. I need to think about this carefully so that we don't double count the effectiveness of technology. Perhaps only one or the other of these effects should happen. I'll try to comment on that soon.

Level 3 Fishing (Helper Is Shipbuilding and perhaps something else)
need specific level 4 technologies here...

Level 3 Herding [especially important for nomadic economies] (Domesticated Animals 9, Land Transportation 2 for horses/mobility)
again I don't have ideas for specific level 4 technologies, except to basically duplicate herding...

Resources

Level 3 Mining [I think this should be level 3 not level 2, as Henrique suggests] (Mechanical Engineering 3, Civil Engineering 3, Geology 4)
Level 4 Early Mining Technology (Mining 0% 5, Explosives 20% 5) Longevity 5
Level 4 Modern Mining Technology (Mining 30% 3, Explosives 40% 3,
Level 4 Prospecting (Mining 0% 5, Geology 0% 5) Longevity 10

Level 3 Logging and Forestry (Ecology)
level 4 Logging (Logging and Forestry 0% 3, metallurgy 0% 10) longevity 8 (metallurgy is for the tools)
Level 4 Modern Logging Will Include Using Machinery...

Level 3 Farm Products [Non-Food like Flax, Leather...]
Level 4 Farm-Based Resources (Farm Products 0% 3, Metallurgy 0% 2, Breeding/Genetics 0% 4) Longevity 10

Well, I haven't even gotten to production and services yet and i'm already ready for a break. I will just go ahead and post this, and see if anyone has any violent objections to the way I'm proceeding first. I will update my post to include production and services later. Some of the things I put down are admittedly kind of lame. I am looking for suggestions as to how to broaden things out, and repair omissions. What do you think?

	21-02-2000 08:24									#56
	Got spare money?

Mark: I was working on Tech Chart 5.2 when you posted. I will now change it to include your stuff, with my recommendations for a couple changes. A few concerns:

The problem with Engineering is that it is not really one thing. There are many types of engineering that depend on many sciences, and they are not really related to each other.

What exactly is "Farming"? I wanted to avoid Level 3 techs that are a hodgepodge of many things. IMO this tech and Agriculture are redundant. I would recommend splitting this into more specific skills.

Rather than having an Improved Crops application, I would recommend making Crop Plants a Level 3 tech. This would be one of the things that Farming gets split into.

This brings me to the applicatin boost. I wanted to avoid any direct micromanagement of Level 4. For the potato example, we can say that contact with a new continent gives lots of free RP's for the Crop Plants technology. I would like to avoid application manipulation because players might feel the need to direct this.

I would also recommend that Early Agricultural Machines and Farm Machinery be combined to form a Level 3 tech, rather than a string of applications.

I thought we already agreed that Mining would be split into two Level 3 techs: Prospection and Mining Engineering

You seem to believe that every Level 3 tech needs an application under it. I never thought his would be the case. Herding does not need applications, it simply affects the productivity of your nomad provinces.

I have to go now, so sorry if some thoughts are incomplete. I will wait for everything you have before posting 5.2

	21-02-2000 10:39									#57
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Mark:

Although some of what u say might be true, and I am willing to cut down on a few of mine, we still shouldn't bias ourselves toward one area (like military) or another.

FE i really would need the level 3 tech of instruments because there are hundreds of instruments out there. Even cutting it down to the basic ones, theres a couple dozen.

100 shouldn't be an absoulute number, but a reasonable target goal and if we are anywhere from ~80-120 it should be fine.

	21-02-2000 11:36									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Forgive me if I missed something but where did level 4 techs come from? I thought it was just levels 1, 2, and 3.
1 being broad level theories, 2 more specific types and level 3 being the application techs.

	22-02-2000 04:06									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Level 4 consists of individual applications: items, improvements, or structures. A new thing is that some of these applications like Crop Rotation are free and affect your civ instantly. They are not techs because they are applications, not fields of study. Also, they are too specific and numerous to each have a place as technologies.

	22-02-2000 23:20									#60
	Remove this text

IMHO, the level 3 techs have to be determined according to the difference they make in the game mechanics. This means that they have to be given a more or less defined function, so that when the player wants to promote a certain aspect of his civilisation, he will know where to push.

I also believe that the Research model can only be as elaborate as the affected models are. If it goes in more detail than that it actually has to handle, it becomes pointless.

As an example I will use two of my own proposed techs (very importantt in the antiquity): Tannery vs Textiles. They are both factors affecting the productivity of resources produced by Animal breeding (for Tannery) and by Agriculture and Animal breeding (for Textiles). Their products are used in about the same applications, (maybe more Armor applications for Tannery and Seafaring for Textiles). Their helper techs only differ a bit, with Chemistry for Tannery and Engines (weaving machines) for Textiles. The related model is the economic one of course, which divides everything into Food, Resources, Services, Labor and some specials. Unless the specials are brought into action, the above two level 3 techs do the same thing, they affect the productivity of the resources extracted from tiles where food is the main product (grass, plains, hills, you know), while the output of the extraction itself depends on other level 3 techs (Agriculture and Animal breeding). Metallurgy and Woodorking have the same function exactly, only they are meant to affect resources extracted from specials and forest tiles (the extraction being monitored by mining and forestry respectively). But what would that matter in a system where resources are unifyied and processed in a province basis with labor from the urban tiles? What saves Metallurgy and Woodworking is the fact that they have different applications.

• I am not implying that my tech tree proposal has something wrong. (I'm not a looney, not yet anyway. ) I only falsified one of my ideas (for which I always had doubts) because I did not want to piss off anybody. But if some of my 96 level 3 techs (which are generally considered few) are proved redundant, what about the techs in an even bigger list? To phrase it more crudely, equipping our models with a few score level 3 techs that they do not really need is only promoting our egos and encumbering the player.
  
  
• I am not implying that we need to retreat to the simplistic approach of the conventional tech systems that gave almost each one of their 90 or so techs (to be exact, 89 for civ2 and 91 for ctp: Activision outbids Microprose for 2 ) a discrete effect. We will posess up to 100 knowledge levels (described in % persentages) and hopefully about 1000 discrete applications suspended on them. That means 100 modifiers and 1000 triggers for effects, all of them available to us in order to enrich our gameplay. We have to find functions (they need not be too special or discete; only to make sense) for almost all of them, in order to justify their existence. Otherwise we will be playing with empty words.
  
  
• I am not implying that any of the models needs to be more elaborate, so that the related technologies would have a purpose. This would be "the mountain coming to the prophet". Considerations about elaboration or simplification of models will actually occur, but they have to be judged on their own accord. IMO we should try to achieve a roughly equal level of complexity for all the models.
  

What I am implying is that since the Research model (I used "research" instead of "technology", because we have to start getting used to the idea that this is something much bigger than just technology. I would rather use the terms "Knowledge" or "Lore", since "research" is yet another inaccurate term. Btw, "Lore" is a cool term, borrowed from RPG's, since we all seem to be RPG lovers as well as civ lovers End parentheses)...err...since the Knowledge model is the one most dependant of the others, it can only make sense if it is in some way serving their purposes. In other words, research in Clash design should not be seen as an end but as a means of enriching gameplay.

Thank you for listening to my ramblings. Excuse me if I am sometimes veering off-topic or if I am repeating myself.

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