 |
| |
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
I've just finished replying to one of Mark's emails and most of what I said to him seemed equally appropriate here, so:
quote:
My general goal for this scenario is to provide a tree with 6 tier 1 techs each having x tier two techs and each of those having y tier 3 techs, though x and y are still up in the air at the moment. I'm thinking of shooting for 6 at each level (which is a moderate amount IMO, but that would give us 6 + 36 (6*6) + 216 (6*6*6) = 258 Techs! At the moment, very little has actually been done, other than to build up the tech tree with usable ancient techs (except writing & Alphabet).
Reading the tech model and actually working with it are two different beasts. When I read the tech model I loved it, working with it has forced me to witness one glaring shortcoming. That is that the model puts far too much weight on the scenario designer. I've got two ideas that may help with this, one changes the way activities work somewhat, the other changes tiers somewhat, though both would ease the workload on future tree designers by a truckload. These ideas are probably not 8.1 material, but should follow soon after if we're to keep expanding the tree in future versions. |
Last edited by alms66 on 29-12-2004 at 09:20
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Reserved for future use...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Could you explain what the problems are and what your proposed solution is?
The problem I see is that it's hard to know what value a (set of) tech will have after receiving X RPs. IF that is your problem, there is a test case that can be adapted in order to provide the answer to that. Otherwise, please explain. Your current post is frustrating as we know ideas are somewhere but we don't know what they are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
 |
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
First, I'd like to say that I'm really looking forward to the scenario! Once this and diplomacy get going will have a pretty cool game!
quote:
Originally posted by alms66
My general goal for this scenario is to provide a tree with 6 tier 1 techs each having x tier two techs and each of those having y tier 3 techs, though x and y are still up in the air at the moment. I'm thinking of shooting for 6 at each level (which is a moderate amount IMO, but that would give us 6 + 36 (6*6) + 216 (6*6*6) = 258 Techs! At the moment, very little has actually been done, other than to build up the tech tree with usable ancient techs (except writing & Alphabet). |
I think that a hundred or more techs to start this out is way too ambitious. We don't have the interface elements necessary for the player to really understand what's going on. I think it is better to shoot for something like 30-50 total technologies with something like 10-20 having solid game effects, and the others being helper technologies. There are something like five or six that are already in the previous scenarios that already have hookups, although some of them like "Production" are kind of lame (overly generic). Only after we get the bugs kicked out for this intermediate tech case should IMO you consider going to something as big as what you originally were thinking of.
For the record what we have so far with game hookups are: Metallurgy, Farming , Production, Biology, Military Tactics , and horses. Note, for some reason horses ended up not being capitalized when the others are. Activities are only: Food, Manufacturing, Combat, and Military. See the technology.XML and activity.XML files for more information. If the old names are appropriate, I would stick with them, but some of these are kluges, so if they don't seem to make sense, feel free to propose that they be replaced or modified.
I look forward to hearing your ideas on reducing the work involved in designing a tech tree, or modifying one for scenario design.
One issue I would like to raise is one that alms and I have been discussing by e-mail. The problem is that the current structure of Activities puts RP's into a very narrow slice of the technologies, leaving the other technologies with no input. Alms, could you post the current tech tree here so that people can see it? that would facilitate discussion. The main issue is that the player certainly needs levers that can be used to influence directly important areas like Farming, but there also needs to be ways for either the society itself, or the player, to invest in broad areas. My take on this is to have some activities that are very tightly targeted in key areas, and others that are very broad, perhaps investing in a whole area like "transportation and communications" that would put RP's in a lot of different transportation and communication technologies, and also their helpers. I think with something like 10 targeted activities and 5-10 broad ones, we can cover the whole field of technologies for this scenario. Once we get a list of Activities settled upon, we can also decide what activities that the people themselves might undertake would be that would feed into those activities. For example, merchants pursuing commerce could certainly feed into the transportation and communication activity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
I have two problems with the tech model (not the model really, but the work that has to go into setting it up).
1. Tiers are useless. I thought they would be of some help to design a tree, but they aren't. So I say, let's remove them from the scenario designer's workload. They will still exist, for player interface reasons, but they'll be automated.
With the new 'requirement' tag you added, Laurent, it's a fairly simple process of setting up the tiers automatically. If a tech has no requirements, it's tier 1. If it has a requirement then it belongs on the tier+1 of it's largest requirement. For example, if TechD requires TechA (tier1), TechB (tier2) and TechC (tier2), then TechD is on the third tier (largest tier number + 1).
Ideally, we'll have a visual editor that will show which tier the tech is placed on to the designer.
2. The Activity structure could stand a little automation as well. In fact, the entire Activity structure can be eliminated by placing an activity tag in the Technology structure. So you have this, for example:
code:
<technology>
<name>Ironworking</name>
<activity>
<military>
<rank>2</rank> (this is the automation explained below)
</military>
</activity>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
This technology only receives RPs from the Military activity, though other activities could be placed in the activity tag as well. The rank tag replaces the proportion tag in the current Activity structure, and makes RP handouts automated to an extent, so the designer doesn’t have to go back and recalculate these when he adds a single technology to a set of 40 or more, for example. I’d suggest the rank be limited to a number from 1-x (I’m not sure how high we’re going to need to go here), with 1 being the lowest rank.
Now, we’ve already established that this technology only gets Military activity RPs, but how many? First we take the total Military RPs, divide them into the priorities. For the sake of this example, I’ll assume we use 1-4 priorities. 1+2+3+4=10, and if you multiply that by 10 you get a percentage. So the highest rank of technologies get 40% of all Military activity RPs generated, rank 3 gets 30%, rank 20 20% and rank 1 10%. These RPs (that have been divided by rank first) then get divided equally into all technologies of the same rank.
That should ease the workload on the scenario designer a bit. This way the only thing he needs to worry about are defining the techs, setting their requirements and helpers and he’s done with the tech stuff (except for what’s in the element structure, of course).
I haven’t spent much time or thought on either of these two, so there could be some problem that I’ve missed with what I’ve described. Be sure to read it carefully and think over whether it would be a good move.
Laurent,
What you mention is also a big problem, though not what I was referring to. As it currently stands, the only way to know how quickly a tech will rise is to play the scenario, make changes, rinse and repeat. It will most certainly get frustrating in the long run.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Your current post is frustrating as we know ideas are somewhere but we don't know what they are. |
I got tired of writing long posts that were reviewed and promptly ignored by everyone, so from now on, let's just say, if you want more, let me know, and if you have questions ask, and I’ll gladly answer.
Last edited by alms66 on 29-12-2004 at 22:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
The tech tree:
code:
<!-- ================***** TECHNOLOGY MODEL *****================== -->
<globals>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<diminishingreturns>1.0</diminishingreturns>
</globals>
<!-- ======================= Technologies ========================= -->
<!-- ========================= Tier One =========================== -->
<technology>
<name>Communications</name>
<tier>1</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>0.0</upkeep>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Transportation</name>
<tier>1</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>0.0</upkeep>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Military</name>
<tier>1</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>0.0</upkeep>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Science</name>
<tier>1</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>0.0</upkeep>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Social</name>
<tier>1</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>0.0</upkeep>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Infrastructure</name>
<tier>1</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>0.0</upkeep>
</technology>
<!-- ========================= Tier Two =========================== -->
<technology>
<name>Signaling</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Communications</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Writing</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Communications</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Ground Transportation</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Transportation</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Naval Transportation</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Transportation</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Science</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Domestication</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Science</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Agriculture</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Science</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Fortifications</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Infrastructure</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Strategies/Tactics</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Military</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Naval Warfare</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Military</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Ground Warfare</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Military</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Siege Warfare</name>
<tier>2</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Military</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<!-- ======================== Tier Three ========================== -->
<technology>
<name>Alphabet</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Writing</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Wheels</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Ground Transportation</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Harnessing</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Ground Transportation</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
<helper>
<name>Domestication</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Oars</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Naval Transportation</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Formations</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Strategies/Tactics</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Boatbuilding</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Naval Warfare</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Shipbuilding</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Naval Warfare</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Siege Weapons</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Siege Warfare</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Mining</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Smelting</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Alloys</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Copperworking</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Bronzeworking</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
<helper>
<name>Alloys</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Ironworking</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Steelworking</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Metallurgy</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
<helper>
<name>Alloys</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Animal Husbandry</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Domestication</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Horse Domestication</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Domestication</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Elephant Domestication</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Domestication</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Camel Domestication</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Domestication</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
<technology>
<name>Plant Husbandry</name>
<tier>3</tier>
<growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
<upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
<helper>
<name>Agriculture</name>
<requirement>0.0</requirement>
<effect>0.5</effect>
</helper>
</technology>
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I think that a hundred or more techs to start this out is way too ambitious. We don't have the interface elements necessary for the player to really understand what's going on. I think it is better to shoot for something like 30-50 total technologies with something like 10-20 having solid game effects, and the others being helper technologies. There are something like five or six that are already in the previous scenarios that already have hookups, although some of them like "Production" are kind of lame (overly generic). Only after we get the bugs kicked out for this intermediate tech case should IMO you consider going to something as big as what you originally were thinking of. |
I knew the 6 at tier one. I have a list of 6 at tier two for Military, Communications & Transportation, though none at Social, One at Infrastructure and I have no idea how I’m going to cram science into only 6 techs, but I’d really like to since this is the only one that would have to break the pattern. Now the ‘y’ I mentioned, tier 3, is really up in the air, and I knew I didn’t want it to be over 100 (thus the exclamation point behind 258) for the first run. That’s why I stopped work and sent it out to you guys, because at 6+36, I’m at 42, plus the 20 I currently have at tier 3, gives us 62. I figure that’s a good first run, being slightly less than 1/4 of the total techs at the full 258. Now, some of the 6 I have in the list for tier two are not appropriate for ancient scenarios, so I left them out (such as Aerial Warfare and Aerial Transportation). This means that the full 42 before tier 3 techs isn’t in there either, leaving a total of 38 techs in the first run.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
For the record what we have so far with game hookups are: Metallurgy, Farming , Production, Biology, Military Tactics , and horses. Note, for some reason horses ended up not being capitalized when the others are. Activities are only: Food, Manufacturing, Combat, and Military. See the technology.XML and activity.XML files for more information. If the old names are appropriate, I would stick with them, but some of these are kluges, so if they don't seem to make sense, feel free to propose that they be replaced or modified. |
Metallurgy is fine, Farming is fine, Biology is fine.
Production has to change, eventually, though I’ll have to get back to you on it. You’re right. It is lame.
Military Tactics I’d like to see changed to Strategies & Tactics, though I can live with it for now.
Horses I’d also like to change to Horse Domestication, though I can live with it as well.
What I truly don’t understand is why these technologies have to be named in a certain way. Is this legacy code from older versions of Clash that require these specific names? There’s no reason I can think of that the program should require a specific name on a specific tech. If it’s not code you’re referring to but to keeping compatibility with older scenarios, don’t sweat it, I’ll make any needed changes on those.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
One issue I would like to raise is one that alms and I have been discussing by e-mail. The problem is that the current structure of Activities puts RP's into a very narrow slice of the technologies, leaving the other technologies with no input. Alms, could you post the current tech tree here so that people can see it? that would facilitate discussion. The main issue is that the player certainly needs levers that can be used to influence directly important areas like Farming, but there also needs to be ways for either the society itself, or the player, to invest in broad areas. My take on this is to have some activities that are very tightly targeted in key areas, and others that are very broad, perhaps investing in a whole area like "transportation and communications" that would put RP's in a lot of different transportation and communication technologies, and also their helpers. I think with something like 10 targeted activities and 5-10 broad ones, we can cover the whole field of technologies for this scenario. Once we get a list of Activities settled upon, we can also decide what activities that the people themselves might undertake would be that would feed into those activities. For example, merchants pursuing commerce could certainly feed into the transportation and communication activity. |
I like the idea of broad and narrow activities.
I posted this in the demo 8 comments, figuring I’d get an answer eventually, but I’ll cross-post it here since it’s relevant:
quote:
10. Need more activities. Speaking of which, why is Dawn the only scenario to use the Domestication activity? Also, what activities are planned for the future?
12. Since Tiers are merely cosmetic properties anyhow, why put an artificial limit? Allow 4 or more tiers of technology. |
Last edited by alms66 on 29-12-2004 at 22:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Great, seemed like a simple solution to me. Your tier 1s almost seem like the right broad categories as they are. |
I meant to suggest that, I guess I forgot.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Go ahead and propose them. just put them into Activities.xml. Just remember that for now tech activities hookups (Where the RPs come from) need to be done by hand, so limit as I suggested above. |
If you're willing to take a little time to walk me through setting one up, I'd be able to do this myself and save you from having to take the time to do it. With "my computer troubles" here though, I couldn't compile them, thus I'd hve to email them to you or Laurent for testing before uploading to the server. I spent a short time searching for it in the code, but didn't find it, yet, but I'll look again later.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I don't care about this one one way or the other. The broad definitions that we had before seemed to be useful. |
I thought so too at first, but if we remove them, coupled with the new requirement tag, we basically have a highly advanced version of a typical Civ tech tree. Interface-wise I wouldn't want to show 258+ technologies in the same tree format that Civ does, but the structure of it is basically the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
A few small things:
- Combat activity is the only thing hardcoded in the military code. So Military Tactics can be renamed to whatever or skipped entirely. I can also divide this activity in to Siege/Naval/Ground combat (+ air later).
- I added a "start" tag so a helper tech would now look like:
<helper>
<name> Example </name>
<requirement> 2.0 </requirement>
<effect> 0.5 </effect>
<start> 1.0 </start>
</helper>
means knowing "Example" to at least 1 is required in order to be able to use this tech at all. Having Example at knowledge less than 2 is harmful (reduces RPS). At 2 it is neutral, at more than 2 it actually helps by increasing the number of RPs received.
The name requirement is already used, so I kept it but start would probably be better named requirement and requirement renamed to something else. If you think it'd be worth renaming, give me a name, I'll change the code (note all the xml files will have to follow, but I'll do that at the same time for the existing ones).
Tiers are indeed useless. You can already skip them in the xml files, I don't think it will hurt in any way.
As for activity, your proposal looks feasible. The current code is made in such a way that indeed you have to compute the proportions by yourself, which I agree is bad, and inactive techs receive 0 RPs but that doesn't change the others' proportions so there is effectively some wasted RPs. All this is quite easy to change, so I can do it this week if everyone agrees on having the activity tag inside the tech. I don't like the word 'rank' though but prefer 'weight' since it could be anything and not necessarily an integer (if you made ranks of 1,2,3 in 20 places and suddenly need something between 1 and 2 it's better to put 1.5 than double the values in 20 files).
On the tech tree itself: Wheel should have a helper of domestication (or big quadruped domestication - horse/ox/donkey). It's not mandatory in order to develop wheels, but it helps a lot. (Aztecs knew the wheel but never did anything out of it for lack of big mammals to put in front of the wheels.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Thanks for being willing, but this is best done by the person familiar with the particular model code anyway. It would also likely take more time to explain how to do it than to do it. |
You're right that it's best done by the most familiar, but if the task is confined to a single file, and you pointed me to that file, I might just figure it out without any help at all. If spread over multiple files it could get a bit tricky, but knowing beforehand what files to look in would go a long way. Having an IDE would help too. 
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
A few small things:
- Combat activity is the only thing hardcoded in the military code. So Military Tactics can be renamed to whatever or skipped entirely. I can also divide this activity in to Siege/Naval/Ground combat (+ air later). |
I'll leave it alone for now. I've still got quite a bit of work to do for this thing to really be ready and I can live with the names as is until after the first version is out, or even later.
If I push this and the tutorials out by mid/late January, I'll be doing good.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
The name requirement is already used, so I kept it but start would probably be better named requirement and requirement renamed to something else. If you think it'd be worth renaming, give me a name, I'll change the code (note all the xml files will have to follow, but I'll do that at the same time for the existing ones). |
I agree it's better to rename it, but we've got more important things to worry about for now, so I'd write note to do it later.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Tiers are indeed useless. You can already skip them in the xml files, I don't think it will hurt in any way. |
Do you know if I can have a tier 4, 5, or higher without causing errors? I have an excel file with the tiers listed in colums, and it would help me organize it a tiny bit if I could, but it's not major. I can always have tiers 4,5, etc. in the excel file and make them tier 3 in the xml file.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
As for activity, your proposal looks feasible. The current code is made in such a way that indeed you have to compute the proportions by yourself, which I agree is bad, and inactive techs receive 0 RPs but that doesn't change the others' proportions so there is effectively some wasted RPs. All this is quite easy to change, so I can do it this week if everyone agrees on having the activity tag inside the tech. I don't like the word 'rank' though but prefer 'weight' since it could be anything and not necessarily an integer (if you made ranks of 1,2,3 in 20 places and suddenly need something between 1 and 2 it's better to put 1.5 than double the values in 20 files). |
How exactly do techs that start as inactive become active currently?
Rank can be weight, it was just an example afterall, and I figured it would be a float... again, just an example.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
On the tech tree itself: Wheel should have a helper of domestication (or big quadruped domestication - horse/ox/donkey). It's not mandatory in order to develop wheels, but it helps a lot. (Aztecs knew the wheel but never did anything out of it for lack of big mammals to put in front of the wheels.) |
I'll keep that in mind for later. I'm not ready to balance out the helpers though. I just threw stuff in here and there until it was working. The only thing that is even tentatively final (for the first run) at this point are the actual technology's namesb themselves.
Last edited by alms66 on 15-01-2005 at 03:09
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Do you know if I can have a tier 4, 5, or higher without causing errors? I have an excel file with the tiers listed in colums, and it would help me organize it a tiny bit if I could, but it's not major. I can always have tiers 4,5, etc. in the excel file and make them tier 3 in the xml file.
|
You can put whatever value you like in the tiers or skip them entirely, it's just a value stored in the tech but never used anywhere in the code.
quote:
How exactly do techs that start as inactive become active currently?
|
It depends on their helper techs. Prior to my latest code change, they were always active (though they might not have been in D7 - the code that changed this must have occurred around 7.1 or some such) unless they had a helper tech whose knowledge was below the minimum knowledge defined for that tech (but that minimum knowledge was always 0)...
Anyway, from now on:
If all the helper techs are above their "start" knowledge, then the tech is active. Otherwise it is not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Great, seemed like a simple solution to me. Your tier 1s almost seem like the right broad categories as they are. |
Actually, the tier 2 techs could be activities as well, though for now, just Tier 1 is ok, because Tier 2 isn't finalized yet.
And, this is a post about a game I played last night. I wrote some last night and some this morning, but then got caught up with new posts and other stuff, so finally I'm writing the rest this afternoon.
I played the Tech test scenario for around 1040 turns or so. There's not much to do, so I populated the entire map with 500 people on each square in between hitting end turn, all the while watching tech growth and...
The more I play this scenario, the more I feel something is totally screwy with the tech growth. Tier 1 techs are supposed to be general theories, Tier 2 more detailed areas of study, and Tier 3 specific areas of study, right? Why then do Tier 3 technologies advance 1/20th the speed of Tier 1 technologies? It seems intuitive to me that the more specific areas of study would progress to their full potential much faster than the theory techs.
This implies one of two things, either Tier 3 techs should be helpers to the Tier 1 & 2 techs and not the other way around (which seems backwards and completely wrong) or the "cost" of researching a Tier 1 tech should be much greater than researching a Tier 2 tech, and even greater than researching a Tier 3 tech.
So how would I do this? Set Tier 1 techs growthrate to 0.1, Tier 2 to 0.5 and Tier 3 to 1.0?
Also, copied directly from the tech model
quote:
Another effect of technology increase is to allow access to a new technology. If the requirements for some technology are met, then that technology is set to its starting tech level and the player is notified of its invention. On the next turn, the tech level of that technology is recalculated.
|
This mentions starting tech levels. Personally, I prefer having all techs start at 0.0. It 'feels' better to me than having a tech immediately start at 10.0 or something else. So, if it hasn't been decided already, I'd recommend leaving this out for good.
-Edit- Reply to Laurent
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
You can put whatever value you like in the tiers or skip them entirely, it's just a value stored in the tech but never used anywhere in the code.
|
Great. Then I'm officially breaking the Tier barrier.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Techs had been decided to start at 1.0 at some point in the last Tech model thread. That or 0.0 is the same. All techs should start at the same level indeed.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
Updated Tier 2 Techs:
Communications
Language
Mass Media
Machine Communications
Transportation
Ground Transportation
Water Transportation
Air Transportation
Space Transportation
Hybrid Transportation (2)
Military
Strategies & Tactics (2)
Water Warfare
Ground Warfare
Siege Warfare
Air Warfare
Science(3)
Geology
Biology
Physics
Chemistry
Mathematics
Social(3)
Philosophy
Religion
Government & Law
Economics
Education
Infrastructure(4)
Fortifications
Energy
Production
Resources
Construction
The Bold Items are the Tier One techs. I'd really like to keep the number of techs down to 6 on Tiers 1 and 2, and 6 or less per required tech thereafter. This will produce a continuously more detailed set of techs at each level until that particular branch 'ends'.
Tier One has already been finalized for this version, I'm trying to finalize tier two at the moment, but I've gotten stuck. Any comments for changes or additions are very welcome at this point.
Notes:
1. I would like to drop this one, but don't have anything better.
2. This one just takes up space to fill the sixth slot. It also conveniently covers stuff which doesn't fall into the other groups. If you have a better way, speak up.
3. These are all tentative at best.
4. I'm considering dropping this one, but don't want to lose the common structure of sixes. This is so vaguely broad, yet the player needs a one stop shop for infrastructure as well, so any help at all would be appreciated moreso here than anywhere else.
Last edited by alms66 on 01-01-2005 at 06:05
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I don't get the Hybrid trnasportation. To me this means nothing. I suggest fluvial(?). Naval = Sea, Fluvial = River. Call it river if fluvial's not English.
Where do pigeons fall in the communications techs? Airbased? I am not sure that there is such a thing as sea-based communication. If that's just putting a message on a boat, that's not communication, that's transportation. Writing is definitely needed, I can't see why you would wnat it out. It ranges from drawing ot pictograohs to ideograms, syllabaries, alphabets and allows for numeric systems (is thus a helper of maths).
Communications I can see: Speech, Writing, Messengers (runners to mail boats and planes), Animal messengers (carrier pigeons), Mechanical automated messengers (semaphores and telegraphs), Mass Media (written - print), Mass media (spoken/visual). Most of these need writing, but carrier pigeons could just be painted black in order to say a battle was lost, so this is not really necessary. Anyway the geographic division doesn't make sense for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
I don't get the Hybrid trnasportation. To me this means nothing. I suggest fluvial(?). Naval = Sea, Fluvial = River. Call it river if fluvial's not English. |
Hybrid transportation is any form of transportation which is both A and B, where A and B are each one of the other types of transportation. As I said, I could drop it, but it's keeping the slot full for now.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Where do pigeons fall in the communications techs? Airbased? I am not sure that there is such a thing as sea-based communication. |
Pigeons could be air-based or under writing.
As for Sea-based comm., that's a mistake. I'll edit that.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Writing is definitely needed, I can't see why you would wnat it out. It ranges from drawing ot pictograohs to ideograms, syllabaries, alphabets and allows for numeric systems (is thus a helper of maths). |
It's needed, for sure, I'm just not sure if it's a Tier 2 tech, though I guess it has to be if we can't find another.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
Communications I can see: Speech, Writing, Messengers (runners to mail boats and planes), Animal messengers (carrier pigeons), Mechanical automated messengers (semaphores and telegraphs), Mass Media (written - print), Mass media (spoken/visual). Most of these need writing, but carrier pigeons could just be painted black in order to say a battle was lost, so this is not really necessary. Anyway the geographic division doesn't make sense for me. |
And here's where you kind of loose me.
By "Communications I" you mean Tier 1, correct? If so, then only six techs are going under that, those are listed above (minus sea-based).
I'm unclear on the "geographic division" sentance.
Note that I've edited the Tier 2 list above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
By geographic, I ment that I'm not sure ground/air/space communications are really fields of themselves. What do you put under air communication? How is a runner pigeon different from a runner hound which would know how to come home? So I generally disagree with the use of ground-based communication , air-based and space-based. I'd ratherremove these categories and replace tehm by something else. Is phone ground based or space based or air based for instance? It uses wires on the ground, relays in the air and satellites when you're phoning from the antarctic. I prefer categories like these:
Message carrying, Machines that carry messages, Mass media (Writing is still there, Linguistics can also be a tier 1 communications tech).
Message carrying would include tier 2+ techs like runners, carrier pigeons, air post. Machines includes semaphores, telegraphs, telephones, mass media includes broadcasting and printing. Broadcasting includes radio and tv.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I just have a few minutes, but want to squeeze in a couple of comments. I think the slavish adherence to exactly 6 tier 2s per tier 1 is needlessly complicating this discussion. Just have however many are needed for each while keeping them all of importance to the scenario. If one has seven, and another three, it should be fine. Importance of the techs and what the player gets out of them is the critical thing here. |
Yea, I know it doesn't really matter, but an even distribution in the first two tiers is more appealing to me. I'll continue to strive for it, but it's not something I'll force if it doesn't logically fit.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I'm not sure it's a bad thing, but we've gone from the base of the tech tree (former tier 1s) being theory areas (Tech 7 thread design) to now being broad areas of practical application. FE Communication. It may be better, but I just wanted to raise the point explicitly. |
I think it's a good thing. If we included big theory areas, we'd have many more than 6 categories, which could lead to some overstimulation of some players. Having big broad categories also destroys the need for only three tiers, or actuallly forces the need for more. This isn't really good or bad IMO, it just is.
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
By geographic, I ment snip... |
Ah, I see now. I was thinking the same thing last night actually.
As for categories, how about this:
Mass Media
Machine Communications
Language (writing, alphabet)
Signaling
As for animal messengers, I don't really like the idea of putting such a shallow portion of tech here (there are only so many animals used for the purpose, and the purpose is the same), so I think I'll stick that under Domestication, and have some level of communication required for it.
Note that I've updated the tree above.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I'm cool with applications being embedded in the tech file. The weight system does seem a lot better. (I'd propose using a nominal 1-10 scale.) The only point that I'd make is that we should either maintain the Activities.xml file to define the activity names and text definitions, or lead with it in the tech file. Otherwise typos would be difficult to identify. |
Ok, so we're going to make the change. When? I need to know whether I should wait for it to start finalizing data or if it's ok to do it now. If I need to wait, I'll switch to working on the tutorials.
because...
If there are no objections to the current tier two, I'll just call it final at this point. I'll ignore what's not appropriate for ancient times (but keep it for later), and start figuring out what data to put where.
I've decided on "global"* growth and upkeep rates as follows, provided there are no objections, this will be permanent, unless more tiers are added in the future or it is found to not work properly:
Tier 1 (Growthrate = 0.20/Upkeep = 1.00)
Tier 2 (Growthrate = 0.40/Upkeep = 0.80)
Tier 3 (Growthrate = 0.60/Upkeep = 0.60)
Tier 4 (Growthrate = 0.80/Upkeep = 0.40)
Tier 5 (Growthrate = 1.00/Upkeep = 0.20)
Thus the upper tiers grow slower and are harder to maintain than lower tiers.
*Note that the actual technology global variables (growthrate, upkeep and diminishingreturns) are currently set on 1.0, though that may change.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
As for categories, how about this:
Mass Media
Machine Communications
Language (writing, alphabet)
Signaling |
This looks good. I am not sure about signaling, though. What will there be on top of this?
Why call language if it's writing? (Alphabet is a particular kind of writing). I'd rather have Writing as a full-fledged area. Linguistics could fit in, but there aren't that many applications of linguistics so it's probably useless to put it here, or it could be part of Language and thus not calling Language Writing would be fine..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mark_Everson
|
|
Canton, MI
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alms66
I've decided on "global"* growth and upkeep rates as follows, provided there are no objections, this will be permanent, unless more tiers are added in the future or it is found to not work properly:
Tier 1 (Growthrate = 0.20/Upkeep = 1.00)
(snip)
Tier 5 (Growthrate = 1.00/Upkeep = 0.20)
|
I think those are ok as values for use in the test scenario. I wouldn't lock anything in as a spec yet, since it seems that the growth rates that you observe may just be a function of the arbitrary numbers that you put in the activities. If the level 1s just had smaller contributions there, it could be that everything works out evenly. The activity numbers might need to be changed for any of several reasons, so is this change even needed yet? Maybe I'm not getting it. . .
Next time you edit the scenario, Alms, could you put in that bulletin what exactly it is that you expect us to do when testing? Do youknow why only Food Mfg. and Mil. activites show up in the econ interface, they all should afaik. Is this something that I need to look into?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LDiCesare
This looks good. I am not sure about signaling, though. What will there be on top of this?
Why call language if it's writing? (Alphabet is a particular kind of writing). I'd rather have Writing as a full-fledged area. Linguistics could fit in, but there aren't that many applications of linguistics so it's probably useless to put it here, or it could be part of Language and thus not calling Language Writing would be fine.. |
Signalling will allow signal towers (such as those used by the Romans), though I guess I could drop it here, since that's the only use I have for it at the moment, and put it under fortifications. I think I'll do that.
Ok, I'll drop Language and call it Writing.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
I think those are ok as values for use in the test scenario. I wouldn't lock anything in as a spec yet, since it seems that the growth rates that you observe may just be a function of the arbitrary numbers that you put in the activities. If the level 1s just had smaller contributions there, it could be that everything works out evenly. The activity numbers might need to be changed for any of several reasons, so is this change even needed yet? Maybe I'm not getting it. . . |
I think in the long run it will work out fine, though, like I said, things will change if they need to.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Next time you edit the scenario, Alms, could you put in that bulletin what exactly it is that you expect us to do when testing? |
I'll add some text to the bulletin, no problem. For right now, there's not much to test. It's more or less a preview, though it's kind of fun too, until the Barbarians are destroyed anyhow. Once I've edited the tech data to be as it should be, then there will be a need for testing.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
Do youknow why only Food Mfg. and Mil. activites show up in the econ interface, they all should afaik. Is this something that I need to look into? |
What exactly are you missing? It may be my fault.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson
One thing that you can do is throw in ever-larger barb armies that appear from time to time to add a little to the excitement. |
Already taken care of.
-Edit-
Let me know if you think it's too much not enough, etc. once you've updated your copy... but then again that's in the bulletin now...
As for that bulletin, you can ignore most of the points having to do with the techs themselves, because I'm in the middle of an update, so comments would be futile at this point. Once I actually post the spreadsheet (Does anyone have a problem working with .xls, MS Excel, files?) here, then comments on the specific techs (and their helpers, requirements, etc.) will be needed.
Check the post in the Technology Model v7 thread regarding the start tag.
Last edited by alms66 on 01-01-2005 at 15:12
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mark_Everson Your tier 1s almost seem like the right broad categories as they are.
...
Go ahead and propose them. just put them into Activities.xml. Just remember that for now tech activities hookups (Where the RPs come from) need to be done by hand, so limit as I suggested above. |
Mark, I've updated the activity file with all the tier 1 techs. Once you get them working, we can see about putting recipients down for them, because I didn't put any for now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
alms66
|
|
Louisiana
Oct 1999
time: 23:16
|
|
I've reorganized everything, and just need to set the helpers, start levels, and what not. When the dust settled, there were 53 total technologies for the first run. I didn't want such an odd number, so rather than cut 3, I added 2, bringing us to 55. Then I opened it up to see how they fit on the panel and sure enough... they don't (at least not at my resolution - 1280x768). Can we change the panel to scrollable? I'm not familiar with Java's API, but if it's anything like MFC, I don't think it's too much trouble to ask. If this gets done, I'll need an update of the game folder. If not, I'll figure out something to hack off (10 techs to be precise).
Last edited by alms66 on 01-01-2005 at 17:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LDiCesare
|
|
La Ferté sous Jouarre France
Jan 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I just committed a scrollbar for the tech panel. It's still far from a cool interface, though.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-12-2004 09:13
|