15-01-2003 15:16									#31
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare factor is the lower of: 1 or (cost of own troops/cost of enemy troops).

I donīt follow your conclusions. It looks like losing to an army that costs the same provides exactly as many RPīs as losing to an army that costs a tenth as much.

It is good to prevent kamikaze behavior, so losing to a much more expensive army shouldnīt help much. Similarly, winning against a much cheaper army shouldnīt help much either. Maybe there should be different formulas for winning and losing:

If you win, you get RPīs proportional to the cost of the enemy units.

If you lose, you get RPīs proportional to the cost of your own units.

About the coding, I think it needs a bit more than just one formula change. The entire concept of tech levels has disappeared, and handling those involved a lot of variables that no longer exist. The old xml files had a lot of stuff that is meaningless now, so I will be leaving that stuff off the new files. We need to make sure that the code does not try to read things like startlevel off the files.

Also, can we split the model into three different xml files? It would be much easier for me to make my tech editor if technologies, applications, and activities were in three different xml files instead of lumped together in one big file, and I think it would be better overall.

	16-01-2003 01:47									#32
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I donīt follow your conclusions. It looks like losing to an army that costs the same provides exactly as many RPīs as losing to an army that costs a tenth as much.

Argh! Yes you are right. I agree with the different win/lose formulas. Remains the point about stalemates. Should they give points at all? Maybe not. That and territory factor should make a good formula.


Splitting the xml file in three is not a problem. Particularly considering that some applications (military units and elements) are already in their own file. You can have as many files as you like, actually. I'll just put them in a folder if there are too many.


If I have to rehaul the code more than one formula, I can do it, but it will take even more time. I'll have to read all the model carefully now...
I have been scanning the code.
If I understand well, barring diminishing returns which are easy to locate, the following changes affect the equations:
global helperweight disappears.
Do multiplier and growthfactor remain? They are not in your sample xml. I guess they don't, as I didn't see them in the equation.
I am struggling to have the correct understanding of the old model in order to know what I need to change so I will probably be asking silly questions soon.

Variables no longer in the xml?
global: diminishingreturns, helperweight, multiplier, growthfactor
technology: diminishingreturns, startlevel??
helper: startlevel, leveloffset -> requirement just a rename for startlevel or leveloffset or something different?
I haven't read everything in depth, and will not have time until saturday (maybe friday), but I need to know what changes and what stays. Also, if you can keep the same names for things that don't change, that helps a little. Am I correct in saying that tech levels are replaced by knowledge in the equations? I'll have better questions this weekend I hope.

	16-01-2003 13:01									#33
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I agree with the different win/lose formulas.

I realized last night that they are not actually different. Each side gets RPīs proportional to the cost of the loserīs units, so it should be easy and simple.

quote: Remains the point about stalemates. Should they give points at all? Maybe not.

I vote no. Stalemate implies lack of progress.

quote: That and territory factor should make a good formula.

I am not so sure about the territory factor. There is nothing inherently different about a fight in your hometown versus far away. The increased risk to the home civ should IMO be modeled by an increase of RPīs fed into military research when the people feel threatened.

quote: If I have to rehaul the code more than one formula, I can do it, but it will take even more time. I'll have to read all the model carefully now...

Tech 7 was a big change, since it entirely ditched tech level and all the variables needed to deal with it. Now Knowledge is the only thing that calculations are based on.

The only globals that remain are growthrate and upkeep

multiplier and growthfactor have been swept into the rubbish bin of history, as have all cases of diminishingreturns and anything with level in its name

requirement does something similar to startlevel, but note that the helper tech equations have changed significantly.

Nothing really changes in the technology growth equations, since knowledge has always been there. Tech level was a logarithmic function based on knowledge, and we got rid of it to concentrate only on knowledge. No names for things that work the same way have been changed.

No, you are not correct in saying that tech level has been replaced by knowledge. Knowledge was always there, and the two are very different things. In the past, tech level was based on knowledge and the helper and applications were based on tech level. Now, helper and applications are based directly on knowledge with no intermediary, which means that the equations for those have been changed quite a bit, since they are now based on a linear function rather than a logarithmic one.

Maybe it will help if I add an application or two to my tech spreadsheet to provide a concrete example. Iīll start working on that.

	16-01-2003 16:49									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns quote: That and territory factor should make a good formula. I am not so sure about the territory factor. There is nothing inherently different about a fight in your hometown versus far away. The increased risk to the home civ should IMO be modeled by an increase of RPīs fed into military research when the people feel threatened.

I am guilty of not explaining the importance I ascribe to the "desperation factor" in tech advancement. One of the main modifiers of tech progress, at least from my readings, is peoples' resistance to change. Significant change usually implies large risks, and that's why it isn't normally undertaken. That is somewhat true today, and was Very true in earlier days.

One thing that does lead to change is Desperation. If what your society is doing now seems doomed to failure then there is an oppenness to potential change since "we're screwed anyway, might as well try something different and hope for a miracle". FE when the Romans started fighting the Gauls the Romans' rigid phalanx-like formations regularly got creamed. Rome at that time came into serious trouble, and was fairly nearly destroyed. The desperation of not being able to fight the Gauls well lead them to develop the Legion and its much more flexible fighing style. Without the Gaul threat and near-destruction of the Roman state, who knows how long it would have taken them to evolve to a Legion.

I think this effect is also good for Game Balance. If you are small and about to go under there is a chance for a miracle in military innovation to save you! If you are big and swallowing up everything in sight there is no pressure to innovate, things are working just fine, thank you.

The problem with the comment that risk should be modeled as increased military tech investment is that if a civ is small it just doesn't have much to invest. Especially when the barbarians are battering down the gates. For that reason I think there should be a serious 'desperation bonus' when a civ begins shrinking toward nothingness. I picture in the long run something more nuanced than Laurent's proposals, but I think what he says captures easily, and good enough for the time being, what I was looking for. I'd like to clarify that the bonuses Laurent is ascribing should only be applied for the losing side of the battle. Winning gloriously on your own ground shouldn't give any benefit beyond a normal win on someone else's land.

	17-01-2003 01:01									#35
	Remove this text

I finally read teh model carefully.
I sum it up to 2 equations:
Knowledge = previous Knowledge + ( TotalHelperEffect * GrowthRate * RP ) / ( 1 + Upkeep * Knowledge )
TotalHelperEffect = 1 + ( HelperTechEffect1 * Knowledge1 ) + . . .
I guess the divider in the Knowlege equation is 1 + Upkeep * previous Knowledge, just to clarify.

Now I understand the difference between knowledge and levels.

I have a few points about applications:

Obsolescence: Teh way I coded it for military units (and the way I definitely want it to be) is different from " a tech makes an application obsolete". It is "an application makes an application obsolete".
So in Delenda scenario, legions become obsolete when cohorts are available.
Not only that, but they become obsolete only when they are less efficient: I compute an overall "efficiency" value for military units (applications), and an app is obsolete if the obsolescing app is more efficient.
That prevents people from having obsolete units and being unable to build a replacement for example.

The equation for effect of tech on applications is a bit complicated for me:
effect multiplier = 1 + (knowledge1 - base1) / knowledge1 * knowledgeffect1 + ...
Consider LowTechApp with a base knowledge of 1 and a factor of 0.1, and a HiTechApp with a base knowledge of 10 and a factor of 0.1.
HiTechApp is helped ten times less than LowTechApp for a change of 1 in knowledge.
I'd simplify the equation by changing it to:
(knowledge - base) * knowledgeffect (skip the division).
This allows to keep factors constant if you change the base knowledge.
If we don't do it that way, imagine the figures you would have for applications that don't obsolete one another: The knowledgefactor would have to be at lest proportional to the base knowledge in order for higher tech applications to be of any good. Linking two variables that way makes the model cumbersome to adjust IMO.

What do you think?

	17-01-2003 13:07									#36
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I finally read teh model carefully. I sum it up to 2 equations: Knowledge = previous Knowledge + ( TotalHelperEffect * GrowthRate * RP ) / ( 1 + Upkeep * Knowledge ) TotalHelperEffect = 1 + ( HelperTechEffect1 * Knowledge1 ) + . . .

Basically, yes.

quote: I guess the divider in the Knowlege equation is 1 + Upkeep * previous Knowledge, just to clarify.

Yes, if that divider equals TotalHelperEffect then growth will be balanced.

Your system for obsolescence looks very good.

quote: Consider LowTechApp with a base knowledge of 1 and a factor of 0.1, and a HiTechApp with a base knowledge of 10 and a factor of 0.1. HiTechApp is helped ten times less than LowTechApp for a change of 1 in knowledge.

You are forgetting that knowledge is supposed to grow on an exponential curve, not a linear one. Knowledge should double at a fairly constant rate over time, so the time it takes for a primitive civ to move from knowledge 1 to 2 is the same as the amount of time it takes for a more advanced civ to move from knowledge 10 to 20. Look at the spreadsheet for clarification, taking note of how fast Knowledge grows in the later years. This is a natural consequence of the exponential growth in GDP that all civilizations experience, so we have to adjust the model to it. Your proposed simplification would cause later applications to grow to astronomical levels, multiplying their effectiveness by up to 20 each turn.

	17-01-2003 13:30									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: You are forgetting that knowledge is supposed to grow on an exponential curve, not a linear one. Knowledge should double at a fairly constant rate over time, so the time it takes for a primitive civ to move from knowledge 1 to 2 is the same as the amount of time it takes for a more advanced civ to move from knowledge 10 to 20. Look at the spreadsheet for clarification, taking note of how fast Knowledge grows in the later years. This is a natural consequence of the exponential growth in GDP that all civilizations experience, so we have to adjust the model to it. Your proposed simplification would cause later applications to grow to astronomical levels, multiplying their effectiveness by up to 20 each turn.

I understand what you say, and thought as you do at first, but the maths say you are wrong. The function is basically the following:
1 + (knowledge1 - base1) / base1 * knowledgeffect1 + ...
(I wrongly typed /knowledge1 in the previous post).
Considering base1 and knowledgeeffect1 are constant, this sums up to:
1 + constant factor * (knowledge1 - base1).
What I say is that instead of constantfactor being made up from two variables input in the xml file, I want it to be directly input in the file.

I understand the exponential problems, and that is actually why I want to suppress that divider.

Let's look at a warrior (req tech 1, attack 1, knowledgeeffect 0.1).
At tech knowlege 1 it is attack 1, at 10 it's got 1.9, at 100 it's got 10.9, at 1000 it's got 100.9
Now what does a phalanx (req tech 10, attack 2) needs in terms of knowledgeeffect to be better than a warrior?
Say I put 0.1 too. At tech knowledge 100, I have a multiplier of:
(1 + 90/10*0.1) = 1.9, for a total attack of 3.8. The warrior has 10.9 at that knoweldge! Phalanx started slightly better (2 > 1.9), but ends up worse while the knowledgeeffect (0.1) remains the same.
For the phalanx to be competitive, it would have to have at least attack = 11, so that means a multiplier of 5.5. But to still be better at knowledge 1000, it needs more, and you end up needing a knoweldgeeffect of 1 in order not to become worse than a warrior at some point.

Do note that my simplification is just a mathematic simplification. I do not change the model. I am just replacing the knowledgeeffect/baseknowledge constant name by knowledgeeffectvariant constant name.

If there is an exponential problem, then it lies in the model and we should change the formula to something like:
sqrt (or log) (previous formula for multiplier).

	17-01-2003 13:35									#38
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Markīs points about the desperation effect are quite valid. However, I believe it is a mistake to link the tech growth to battles. If desperation tech only comes from losing battles, then the civ will be unable to adjust to an obvious threat until a battle is fought. If a horde of clearly superior enemies is on the doorstep, then the civ should get RP regardless of whether a battle is fought. If they donīt then clever players will be forced to send the troops in a kamikaze attack in order to turn on the desperation RP growth.

Currently, some RPs are earned through battles, but if you invest your economy in military tech, you will earn much bigger benefit. Try to get Cohorts available in Delenda if you get RPs only through battles. Chances are you will have finished the game before you do. If you put some econ in Military, then you will have them.
If you don't decide to put points in Military techs when there are big armies regularly invading you, then you should lose IMO because that research should put a strain on other areas of the economy.

	17-01-2003 16:04									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns So we have the following ways of generating RPīs: Economic: from the civīs spending money on things, currently the primary RP source Desperation: when the civ is about to die, and economic means cannot save it Trade: based on trading volume with another civilization and difference in Knowledge between the two civs Peace: from diplomatic contact with another civ, based on attitudes toward each otehr and difference in Knowledge between the two civs Spying: from covert operations, based on success of spies and difference in Knowledge between the two civs Diplomacy: gaining RPīs in a fair exchange The peace dividend, spying, and diplomacy will have to wait form the diplomatic model. Is there a trading model already that can generate trade RPīs?

I'm game to give your approach a shot Richard. Most of these type things are really easy to change or tweak anyway.

quote: Is there a trading model already that can generate trade RPīs?

Yes. Check out the crude merchant function in delenda now. It is nowhere near as sophisticated as it will be, but it can start to serve an RP generation function as soon as we have a spec.

quote: Trade: based on trading volume with another civilization and difference in Knowledge between the two civs

I would even offset this a little so that two civs with identical tech knowledges still gain some RPs from trade. This is because different tech approaches that give the same practical results can still be recombined to increase capabilities.

I'm going to leave the math to you guys for the moment. If you think you need a third opinion let me know. And of course if I see something I don't like, I'll speak up as usual .

Lookin' Good!

	17-01-2003 17:16									#40
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Considering base1 and knowledgeeffect1 are constant, this sums up to: 1 + constant factor * (knowledge1 - base1). What I say is that instead of constantfactor being made up from two variables input in the xml file, I want it to be directly input in the file.

You are correct. This mathematical simplification is basically what I did with helper techs. The difference is that helpers of technologies affect growth rates, while helpers of applications change the values directly. This means that if we removed the base number, applications would start at a multiplier equal to the tech start level.

I vote to accept the changes, giving the name knowledgeeffect to your new factor.

Note that with this change, knowledgeeffect must decrease as we get higher up the tech tree, just as helpertecheffect does.

quote: Let's look at a warrior (req tech 1, attack 1, knowledgeeffect 0.1). At tech knowlege 1 it is attack 1, at 10 it's got 1.9, at 100 it's got 10.9, at 1000 it's got 100.9

Correct

quote: Now what does a phalanx (req tech 10, attack 2) needs in terms of knowledgeeffect to be better than a warrior?

Think about those requirements. Why is it that something that requires ten times the knowledge only has twice the attack? That is a giant step backwards in efficiency. Something that has a requirement of 10 should start at an attack of 10. The phalanx is one fifth as strong as it should be at the start, so of course it will be horribly weak for all knowledge levels.

I believe that you are still thinking in terms of tech levels. Previously, if a tech level of zero had a knowledge of one, then a tech level of 10 would have a knowledge of 2. Your phalanx unit uses the old tech level requirements. It should have a required knowledge of 2 in the new system, and the next unit in the chain should have a knowledge requirement of 4, then 8, 16, and so on. Using either unit past knowledge levels of 10 would be almost impossible.

Look at what happens with phalanx (req tech 2, attack 2) If the old knowledgeeffect is also 0.1, then new knowledgeeffect is 0.05. As tech advances, the attack numbers are:

code:

knowledge | warrior | phalanx
----------|---------|--------
2         | 1.1     | 2
3         | 1.2     | 2.1
4         | 1.3     | 2.2
5         | 1.4     | 2.3
8         | 1.7     | 2.6
10        | 1.9     | 2.8
16        | 2.5     | 3.4
100       | 10.9    | 11.8
1000      | 100.9   | 101.8

	18-01-2003 01:56									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I believe that you are still thinking in terms of tech levels. Previously, if a tech level of zero had a knowledge of one, then a tech level of 10 would have a knowledge of 2. Your phalanx unit uses the old tech level requirements. It should have a required knowledge of 2 in the new system, and the next unit in the chain should have a knowledge requirement of 4, then 8, 16, and so on. Using either unit past knowledge levels of 10 would be almost impossible

OK I get it.
Values increases should be proportional to the knowledge level, then things will roll correctly.

	18-01-2003 15:02									#42
	Got spare money?

So should I try to build an online application editor based on the following xml spec?

code:

<application>

  <name>Charger</name>
  <type>element</type>

  <requirements>
    <technology>
      <name>Warhorses</name>
      <knowledge>1.5</knowledge>
    </technology>
  </requirements>

  <obsolescence>
    <application>
      <name>Knight</name>
    </application>
  </obsolescence>

  <Mobility>
    <technology>
      <name>Warhorses</name>
      <baseknowledge>1.5</baseknowledge>
      <knowledgeeffect>0.33</knowledgeeffect>
    </technology>
  </Mobility>

  <Attack>
    <technology>
      <name>Warhorses</name>
      <baseknowledge>1.5</baseknowledge>
      <knowledgeeffect>0.07</knowledgeeffect>
    </technology>
    <technology>
      <name>Military Tactics</name>
      <baseknowledge>1</baseknowledge>
      <knowledgeeffect>0.1</knowledgeeffect>
    </technology>
  </Attack>

  <Defense>
    <technology>
      <name>Military Tactics</name>
      <baseknowledge>1</baseknowledge>
      <knowledgeeffect>0.1</knowledgeeffect>
    </technology>
  </Defense>

</application>

	18-01-2003 15:28									#43
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns Note that Charger should probably be the second cavalry unit that the civ gets. The first one should come when Warhorses hits a knowledge of one. This is because, when the civ discovers the terrain special, the knowledge is at zero, so it will take several turns of RP input to raise it to that knowledge of one, representing the time it takes to turn wild horses into decent mounts.

This is certainly correct IRL. For good player feel though we may just arbitrarily set the knowledge to 1 when something is discovered in the way that we have the horses working now. But you don't need to worry about that since any knowledge bonus setting would be determined by the scenario designer.

	18-01-2003 16:55									#44
	Remove this text

I think that it would be good policy to always model tech advance as RP input rather than direct knowledge adjustment. So there can be an event that gives the civ some RPīs in Horses when they are first discovered. That way the Biology tech and any other helpers can do their job. If we balance it right, the RP gain when the horse special is discovered can be enough to immediately give knowledge=1 if the player has a good Biology level, but not enough if the helper tech is at a bad level due to economic mismanagement.

I have completed and uploaded a spreadsheet that shows how applicaions advance along with tech. One page of the spreadsheet shows three different units (warrior, phalanx, and legion) with a single attribute that rely on the same technology, and another page shows all three attributes of the charger unit as described in the xml file above. Again, the formula has to be altered manually but you can play around and see what happens with different numbers.

	18-01-2003 17:47									#45
	Tired of ads?

I'd rather have all military data together, and these include things which are not tech-related, like cost. The image used can be tech-dependant, but the is not a figure so doesn't rely on hte application equations.
The existing data looks like:
<Element>
<name>Charger
<default>Warrior
<category>horse
<Cost> (...)
</Cost>
<requirement>
  <name>horses</name>
  <startlevel>5.0</startlevel>
  </requirement>
<attack>
  <value>80</value>
  <technology>
  <name>horses</name>
  <startlevel>5.0</startlevel>
  <add>1.0</add>
  <multiply>0.03</multiply>
  </technology>
  </attack>
(...)
</Element>

It should be changed to something like:

<Element>
<name>Charger
<default>Warrior
<category>horse
<Cost> (...)
</Cost>
<requirement>
  <name>horses</name>
  <knowledge>1.5</knowledge>
  </requirement>
<attack>
  <value>80</value>
  <technology>
  <name>horses</name>
  <baseknowledge>1.5</baseknowledge>
  <knowledgeeffect>0.1</knowledgeeffect>
  </technology>
  </attack>
(...)
</Element>

The <type>element</element> tag that you suggest happens to be very awkward to handle in terms of code: If the application requires additional data like cost which is outside the tech model, then either the tech model would have to know that cost stuff in order to relay it to the application or the application definition would be split into different xml files. Both solutions I dislike. One becque it prevents us from adding new kinds of applications without changing the tech code, the other one because it requires even more bookkeeping to make the link between the tech model application and the other model object.

As a side note, obsolescence is managed at Unit level, not Element level. It is easier to plug in with the econ and, generally, in order to design units and their progression.

So a single application.xml file shouldn't exist, but the application editor would instead fill in all the teh-related data of various xml files (military, social?, diplomacy?...) which use the applications,with a pattern:
  <value>80</value>
  <technology>
  <name>horses</name>
  <baseknowledge>1.5</baseknowledge>
  <knowledgeeffect>0.1</knowledgeeffect>
  </technology>
(and add their own tags like cost, category, elements in the military case.

For units, the military.xml file, goes like this:
<Unit>
  <name>Legion</name>
  <Image>Legion</Image>
  <element>
    <name>HeavySpear</name>
    <number>3500</number>
  </element>
(snip)
  <obsolete>Cohort</obsolete>
</Unit>
<Unit>
  <name>Siege weapons</name>
  <Image>
    <Default>Ballista</Default>
    <technology>
      <name>Military Tactics</name>
      <startlevel>12.0</startlevel>
      
    </technology>
    <technology>
      <name>Military Tactics</name>
      <startlevel>15.0</startlevel>
      
    </technology>
  </Image>
  <element>
    <name>Catapult</name>
    <number>500</number>
  </element>
</Unit>
again, "startlevel" can be replaced with "knowledge".

So the application editor would be like what you proposed except instead of writing
<Application><type>element</type></Application>
you write
<element></element>,
Also add a value tag inside the attack and other tags.
The image name stuff in the units gives an idea of how tech-dependant strings work (currently you can play Delenda and increase Military Tactics to 15 to see the siege weapons and archer units change uniforms).

	18-01-2003 17:52									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I think that it would be good policy to always model tech advance as RP input rather than direct knowledge adjustment.

Would that work when enabling a new tech? What was its start knowledge before being enables so it becomes one after receiving RPs? Was it 0 or was it 1 and marked disabled?

	18-01-2003 18:31									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare quote: I think that it would be good policy to always model tech advance as RP input rather than direct knowledge adjustment. Would that work when enabling a new tech? What was its start knowledge before being enables so it becomes one after receiving RPs? Was it 0 or was it 1 and marked disabled?

You know, its probably easiest to allow both ways, arbitrary knowledge setting, and RP bonuses. That way if a scenario designer doesn't really much care, and doesn't want to reverse-engineer to find out what the avg. RP bonus should be, they can just set k = 1. And the richer but more complicated option would also be open to them.

	19-01-2003 19:59									#48
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I have coded the new knowledge update equations (helpers included).
Mark, do you know if a technology update cycle is run at the beginning (or before) the first turn? It should in order to have active techs with helpers to become active.
I realize there are a number of variables which are no longer needed, or have no effect on the game mechanisms.
I got rid of most of them.
I have a question: Does tier have any effect on the equations? Right now it looks like it is just a classifying tool with no effect on the game.

	19-01-2003 20:16									#49
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Hi Laurent:

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I have coded the new knowledge update equations (helpers included).

Sounds great! When do I need to update the econ tech stuff?

quote: Mark, do you know if a technology update cycle is run at the beginning (or before) the first turn? It should in order to have active techs with helpers to become active.

AFAIK there is no initial tech turn. I did some looking and also could find no evidence of one. Rather than a whole initial tech turn can you just do a sweep to make sure everything that is active is set that way?

quote: I have a question: Does tier have any effect on the equations? Right now it looks like it is just a classifying tool with no effect on the game.

So far just a classifying tool. But we should be using it in any new tech interface. Even updating the current tech button popup to organize by tier would be a good idea IMO. Thoughts?

	20-01-2003 01:15									#50
	Support Apolyton

quote: Sounds great! When do I need to update the econ tech stuff?

There seems to be only an impact on SectorInfo.java Since it returned the techLevel, I guess that SectorInfo needs some reworking. Making use of xml files looks like a good idea, as it would allow to check whether the application stuff works fine for non military areas, however it can still be hard coded.
I commented the line away, you should replace the .add thing by a multiplier. Most classes didn't change, although I removed a lot of now unused variables.

The point is that the tech knowledge is a multiplier, whereas you had an addition of 1 per techlevel. I think that only impacts farming, but I may be wrong.

Also, we have to decide what knowledge values are used in the various scenarios. I suppose 1 in Dawn and Jericho is OK, but what values would be "realistic" for Delenda and Attila?

	20-01-2003 17:27									#51
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

As far as I remember, I didnīt suggest the type-element tag, it was in the xml file that I inherited from Gary. That Charger xml I have been using came directly from something he posted a while ago.

Splitting all applications up into different files and keeping everything in those files sounds very good. Iīll have to download the most recent demo and have a look in the files so I know how to deal with them. Iīm not promising anything, but I may be able to make web-based editors for all types of applications so we donīt have to make them by hand. What applications do we have in the code that are not military units, and how should the tech data be inserted into those files?

The method I prefer for activating tech is to keep knowledge at zero until the tech is activated, at which time the player puts RPīs into it until it hits knowledge of one. But simply setting knowledge to one when it is discovered shouldnīt hurt anything. It may lead to a somewhat sudden jump in the things that tech helps, however, so we need to see if that is a problem.

The tier of a tech only really affects the interface. Later on, we will probably have to add other things that affect the interface, like descriptions or pictures, or the thing that the advisor says when teh tech is discovered or reaches a certain level.
I would set all of the knowledge values to 4 for the scenarios that involve Romans.

	20-01-2003 21:40									#52
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Thanks Laurent, those changes should be simple to make.

Although it does bring up an Agriculture issue I am wrestling with. From what I have read agriculture roughly plateaued in productivity for much of classical antiquity. The bigger population gains came from farming on additional types of soil, and with somewhat improved crops. So agricultural productivity (Farming tech mostly) should probably change only from 1 to like 1.5 or at most 2 by the later scenarios. Any greater change than that would result in food becoming plentiful, and agriculture getting beyond subsistence level, which didn't happen in general until the modern era c1500 or so AFAIK. So we'll need to structure Farming so that it is hard to get it very high. I guess that means very high Upkeep in the model.

Any thoughts on ramifications that this would have on the rest of the system? Seems it should work ok.

Otherwise something like 3-5 for general knowledge levels for the Roman scenarios as Richard suggests sounds good.

As a crude test, we should be able to take the Dawn scenario, shut off the victory conditions and barbs, and expand like mad. In several hundred turns one should crudely get up to those Roman knowledge levels.

	22-01-2003 15:34									#53
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I have downloaded demo 7_2, extracted the technology.xml and military.xml files, and updated both of them to the new knowledge based system. They are posted on my website.

No changes have been made to the structure of either, so the game should run almost the same as before, with the exception that some numbers will be slightly different due to the conversion from levels to knowledge.

Technology Details:

All technologies have an upkeep equal to their helper effect value. Techs with no helpers have no upkeep. All helper effetcs are 0.5

Activity Details:

Nothing changed, but they are now in a seperate xml file.

Element Details:

Warrior and, presumably, all elements that have it as a default, have Attack and Defense improved by Military Tactics, with a baseknowledge of 1 and a knowledgeeffect of 0.2 This means that basically every unit in the game will have these stats multiplied by the same number, since they all defailt to Warrior. I see no problem with this.

Legionary has a Military Tactics knowledge requirement of 3

Charger has a horses requirement of 1, and the baseknowledge of everything horses improves is 1. horses improves Attack with a knowledgeeffect of 0.1 and Mobility with a knowledgeeffect of 0.3

Catapult has Breach improved by Military Tactics, with a baseknowledge of 1 and a knowledgeeffect of 0.1

Archer has a Military Tactics knowledge requirement of 1.5

Unit Details:

Siege Weapons changes pictures at Military Tactics knowledge 2 and 4

Bowmen changes pictures at Military Tactics knowledge 2

	22-01-2003 15:59									#54
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns I looked for examples of applications in other xml files, but found none. Road cost and effectiveness, for example, should be improved by technology. The economy.xml file is full of tags like lowtechcostf and hightechcostp. What are these and how to they relate to the tech model?

Hi Richard, thanks for all the changes and suggestions. They seem basically good to me. I need to run really soon, so just a quickie answer. Agree on the Roads, but I don't know how complicated it would be to fix it up right now. IMO we've got bigger fish to fry if its not trivially easy.

Economy.xml does nothing now. I am just working on the xml input for all the econ stuff. lowtechcostp is how much production (mfg goods) a point of whatever sector costs when tech is low (knowledge =1 for most basic techs) The high tech version is for when tech level = 100, need to figure how to use it in the knowledge system. The idea is FE in the farming sector at the start improving farms is very labor intensive, but as tech gets higher it becomes more machine-intensive. Hope that helps.

	23-01-2003 00:03									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Tech level 100 means knowledge of 512, assuming the techs start at level 10, which most basic techs probably would. Since knowledge is linear, it should just be a matter of taking the hightech number, subracting the lowtech number, dividing that difference by 500 (no need to be too precise), and adding that back to the lowtech number. Doing that for each cost should give a nice sliding scale, if you mean what I think you do.

Of course, I would prefer to use Applications wherever possible. This kind of thing reminds me of the hard coding of tech effects that foiled Civ scenario designers. This may be a situation where Applications donīt easily do what you want them to do, but I have an idea. One possibility is to have a series of "Improve Farm" applications that render each other obsolete. Let me make something up to serve as a crude example:

code:

<Production Order>
  <Name>Improve Farm I</Name> 
  <category>infrastructure</category> 
  <requirement>
    <name>Farming</name> 
    <knowledge>2</knowledge> 
  </requirement>
  </obsolete> Improve Farm II</obsolete>
  <Effect>
    <value>20</value> 
    <technology>
      <name>Farming</name> 
      <baseknowledge>2</baseknowledge> 
      <knowledgeeffect>0.2</knowledgeeffect> 
    </technology>
  </Effect> 
  <Cost>
    <Production>0.1</Production> 
    <Services>2.0</Services>  
  </Cost>
</Production Order>

<Production Order>
  <Name>Improve Farm II</Name> 
  <category>infrastructure</category> 
  <requirement>
    <name>Farming</name> 
    <knowledge>8</knowledge> 
  </requirement>
  <requirement>
    <name>Production</name> 
    <knowledge>4</knowledge> 
  </requirement>
  </obsolete> Improve Farm III</obsolete>
    <Effect>
    <value>80</value> 
    <technology>
      <name>Farming</name> 
      <baseknowledge>8</baseknowledge> 
      <knowledgeeffect>0.1</knowledgeeffect> 
    </technology>
    <technology>
      <name>Production</name> 
      <baseknowledge>4</baseknowledge> 
      <knowledgeeffect>0.1</knowledgeeffect> 
    </technology>
  </Effect> 
  <Cost>
    <Production>2.0</Production> 
    <Services>2.0</Services>  
  </Cost>
</Production Order>

<Production Order>
  <Name>Improve Farm III</Name> 
  <category>infrastructure</category> 
  <requirement>
    <name>Farming</name> 
    <knowledge>32</knowledge> 
  </requirement>
  <requirement>
    <name>Production</name> 
    <knowledge>16</knowledge> 
  </requirement>
  </obsolete> Improve Farm IV</obsolete>
  <Effect>
    <value>320</value> 
    <technology>
      <name>Farming</name> 
      <baseknowledge>32</baseknowledge> 
      <knowledgeeffect>0.05</knowledgeeffect> 
    </technology>
    <technology>
      <name>Production</name> 
      <baseknowledge>16</baseknowledge> 
      <knowledgeeffect>0.05</knowledgeeffect> 
    </technology>
  </Effect> 
  <Cost>
    <Production>6.0</Production> 
    <Services>2.0</Services>  
  </Cost>
</Production Order>

	23-01-2003 07:13									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns Tech level 100 means knowledge of 512, assuming the techs start at level 10, which most basic techs probably would. Since knowledge is linear, it should just be a matter of taking the hightech number, subracting the lowtech number, dividing that difference by 500 (no need to be too precise), and adding that back to the lowtech number. Doing that for each cost should give a nice sliding scale, if you mean what I think you do.

Good idea!

quote: Of course, I would prefer to use Applications wherever possible. This kind of thing reminds me of the hard coding of tech effects that foiled Civ scenario designers. This may be a situation where Applications donīt easily do what you want them to do, but I have an idea. One possibility is to have a series of "Improve Farm" applications that render each other obsolete.

Sounds reasonable to me. So long as we can make it so that the orders automatically upgrade from one type to another as the baton is passed, and other MM can be avoided, I've got no beef with it. And as you say, it'd be much more flexible for scenario design purposes. I will need to cogitate upon the details. . .

	24-01-2003 01:18									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Richard, I download your xml files to play with them and adjust the scenarios accordingly.
The default stuff in the military is essentially to avoid lazy people to repeat the same stuff over and over again: I hate CtP2 units file because it is so big.
You can always override a default, like replacing a requirement of a knowledge of 1 by one of 2. I will have to test it, particularly with the new tech implementation, but it should work so we can change everything with the current file by adding more tech requirements if needed (we would have to tye them anyway without the default).

Chargers and cavalry can default to whatever but add a horse requirement. The defaulting I did was planned on the number of lines I wouldn't have to write if I defaulted to something. I can change it to add horses as a prerequisite for cavalry. That doesn't sound weird.

	24-01-2003 12:17									#58
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I undertstand what you did with the defaults and I certainly approve. This will make unit creation and scenario design a lot easier.

I would like to be able to do some of this altering and testing myself, but the problem is that while I can use free and easily downloaded software to unpack the .jar file and see the .xml files, I don't know how to repack the .jar so the game plays with the new files. Is there some way to do this that does not involve downloading an immense Java IDE?

	24-01-2003 12:51									#59
	Suffering from ads?

The best IDE to manage jars is winzip.
You just open it with winzip (rename it .zip if it complains), change it, update the archive with winzip once you have changed the files (I am almost certain you can even edit the file from winzip without having to extract them), then save the jar and make sure:
1) it is still named .jar
2) you didn't lose the manifest.mf file in the process (just don't touch that file)
3) you didn't change any of the .class
The best way is probably to copy the .jar and make changes in the copy. If anything goes wrong you can compare it with the original (winzip again), or send me the bad jar (through mail or via your web).

	24-01-2003 13:30									#60
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Thanks. Iīll try that when the next demo with the changed tech system comes out.

Come to think of it, why donīt we release the game with the technology changes now and call it Demo 7.2.2? It sounds like you have already made the required changes. I have two weeks of mostly free time approaching, so it would be a perfect time for me to do some serious playtesting and fine-tuning.

If I add new units, activities, and technologies, will the econ GUI update automatically so that money can be put into them? Even if it doesnīt update automatically, is there a way I can make the new stuff show up by altering only an xml file? If so, then we will already be halfway to a fairly user-friendly scenario design, since new unit pictures can be easily added to the game folder.