17-02-2003 19:53									#91
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I already fixed that. You'll see "upkeep+1=..." in the file.

It does not appear to be fixed on my computer. The Upkeep displayed in the log file is always the same, no matter what the tech level is. Upkeep for Biology should be 1 at knowledge of zero and 21 at level 4, but it always displays as 5 no matter what the knowledge.

quote: About proportion adding up to 1, you (or someone else) asked elsewhere that the figures should be proportions, so that inactive techs wouldn't benefit from it until they are discovered. I implemented that too, but that is incompatible with the fixed figure. Maybe adding a "Wasted" recipient would do the job too. What do you think?

I donīt understand what you are saying. Sometimes the whole point is to waste RPīs, as in the Food example above.

	18-02-2003 01:37									#92
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Sorry for the confusion. I did it doesn't mean you have it, but you should get it with the next code released.

For wasting RPs, the way I understood the first proposal was thus:
If I have 100 RPs sent to Activity A1, and 3 recipient techs T1,T2,T3 with proportions of 0.5, 0.25, 0.25 but T3 is not active, then until T3 is active, should T1 recieve 50 points and T2 25, thus wasting 25 points, or should they receive respectively 66 and 33? If you want the former, waste is there , if you want the latter and allow for waste, then I need one more information, like wasteratio in the activity description.

	18-02-2003 05:49									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Sorry for the confusion. I did it doesn't mean you have it, but you should get it with the next code released.

He has the very latest code I have gotten from you. That is what is in Testbed 7. (aside from the recent getObsolete fix). If you didn't send the code with the upkeep fix to me yet then everything makes sense.

	18-02-2003 22:06									#94
	Support Apolyton

Something appears to be seriously odd with the behavior of Activities. I made the following two Activities and added them to the 7-6-1 activity.xml file:

code:


<activity>
  <name>Test 1</name>
  <description>test</description>
  <recipient>
    <name>Architecture</name>
    <proportion>0.2</proportion>
  </recipient>
</activity>

<activity>
  <name>Test 2</name>
  <description>test</description>
  <recipient>
    <name>Siege Weapons</name>
    <proportion>2</proportion>
  </recipient>
</activity>

	23-02-2003 15:13									#95
	New contributer!? Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I am interested in helping out with the Tech model, particularly the "tree." I am currently working on the Map generator and am particularly interested in the connection between technology and the map.

I am really interested in this new model. It really looks nice. My compliments to those who came up with it. I have skimmed over parts of it and have a very basic understanding of how it will work. I will have to read this entire post () when I have the time to read through it so that I can contribute more effectively. I have a few quick questions though.

1. I have read in past tech posts discussion over a random element. Is that being included? I really think it should be (at least if nothing else, that a random element "discovery" can speed up research where otherwise it would take a long time to reason out a tech). I am not saying necessarily it should be big or small, just that it should be there. It would make tech much more interesting.

2. Are we still using the 4 tier model (general field (such as chemistry), specific field (such as explosives)), application (such as gunpowder), currently unknown by me (but I would suggest *lousy fire pot*, the "cannon powder", and "advanced gun powder" types would fit in this category) ? If not... then the rest of this is voided (for the most part).

3. I read in this current thread a bit of debate over whether a specific technology should spread from civilization to civilization or if it should be discovered by each civ independently and I have a suggestion (but remember I have not read it all yet...). I think in many ways, this depends on the values and government of the discovering civilization and of their scientists. All these "models" we talk about (diplomacy, tech, etc...) are interrelated. That is the problem Clash is trying to solve. Past civ games have separated concepts that really should be brought together. So if I have a government type that is of a secretive and/or dictatorial (even totalitarian) type, my technology may not get out as quickly. That is unless my countries scientists have a different philosophy. Some scientists see that knowledge should be shared among all people to quicken the rate of discovery, others see knowledge as something to guard as a trade secret to give a corporation a financial advantage (for really capitalistic oriented nations).

This is where the fourth "specific application" layer can come into play. I have yet to read about what the fourth tier is. But there is a difference between the first breakthrough application and later evolutions of a technolology. An example of how this could be used, depending on our model is this.

A. Model: Some technology spreads from civ to civ.
Implementation: RP may go to advance or even give a level 3 tech, level 4 could be protected.

B. Model: Even though the idea of a tech spreads, some counties even in our time do not adopt a tech effectively, quickly, or sometimes even at all (aboriginies, third world countries are examples.)
Implementation: the spread of discovery on any level as well as a countries ability to pick up ideas/discoveries made by other civilizations can be determined by a countries policies in other areas .

4. On another topic altogether: Technology has a lot to do with the amount of detail about the map that is available to any given country. I want to play a part in determining how this will be done. Basically I would like to be able to contribute to the "tree" (or whatever we are calling the list of available discoveries now) itself. How far along is the tree itself?

and

	25-02-2003 13:38									#96
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by primemover I am interested in helping out with the Tech model, particularly the "tree." I am currently working on the Map generator and am particularly interested in the connection between technology and the map.

Good, we can always use more help. But I am afraid that absolutely nothing has been coded that would allow tech to affect the map. Aside from a few hard coded economics effects (hopefully these will soon be controlled by an xml file) the only thing that technology can now affect is military units. Tech can also trigger events, but that only functions in an individual scenario.

quote: 1. I have read in past tech posts discussion over a random element. Is that being included?

Currently not. The tech model is quite deterministic now. But once we get the foundations running properly, I hope to add extras such as random discoveries and RP gains. But that is probably a long time in the future.

quote: 2. Are we still using the 4 tier model

The Tier of a tech currently has no effect on game mechanics, nor is it likely to in the near future. But it is a handy modeling tool, and I use it to help me keep the tree straight. Perhaps we will eventually have events that do something to all techs with a certain Tier.

quote: 3. I read in this current thread a bit of debate over whether a specific technology should spread from civilization to civilization or if it should be discovered by each civ independently

This kind of thing will be handled by RP growth equations. Right now RP comes from events, basic economic activity, combat, and government investment. Eventually it will also come from trading, spying, and a "peace divedend" that shares tech between civs with good relations.

quote: I have yet to read about what the fourth tier is.

The fourth tier is applications, so a Legion or a Catapult can be seen as a tier 4 tech. Right now, Applications (military elements are the only ones at the moment) activate automatically when the civ gets a certain amount of technology. There are vague plans to allow such applications to be activated by other means before teh civ hits the proper tech levels, but that is also in the future.

The tech tree is growing slowly, as scenarios demand. There are currently ten technologies, and all except one (Farming) are devoted to allowing and improving military units. You can see this tech tree by downloading the testbed off my web site and opening up the activity, technology, and military xml files.

The techs currently go from knowledge zero to four, turning on military units as they do. Each current scenario is set at a mostly constant tech level. Now that I have gotten permission to use some images people created for civ2 scenarios, we can make a lot more units. I will soon start working on a scenario where technology starts at zero and advances to knowledge four and beyond.

	26-02-2003 02:48									#97
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Just pointing out that military elements and walls are affected by tech. Of course, walls are military stuff, but since element means something in the tech model, I thought it worth saying.
If there is anything specific you'd like the tech to be able to change, do say it. We talked about showing specials only if you had the right tech at one time. If you need/want that or something else, say so and we'll see if that can be coded. I think you referred to things like the depth of see and such. Images (actually strings, but that's the name of the image) can be driven by tech, so anything that is image or string-dependant could depend on tech (for instance we could show sea, deep sea as a single name and image at low tech and 2 names and images at higher tech). I'd have to plug some image Strings to the technology dependant string, but that shouldn't cost too much to do for example.

	26-02-2003 03:39									#98
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't mean to interrupt, but this looks awesome. I hope you guys keep up the good work, it should be quite a sight one day.

	26-02-2003 13:23									#99
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I was somewhat confused about tech dependent strings. What exactly can they do, and what is the format to do it? Could I do something like this:

code:

<healAfterFight>
  <default>0.1</default> 
  <technology>
    <name>Medicine</name>
    <knowledge>5.0</knowledge>
    
  </technology>
  <technology>
    <name>Medicine</name>
    <knowledge>10.0</knowledge>
    
  </technology>
</healAfterFight>

	01-03-2003 19:24									#100
	Increase the size of your Attachments

TechnologyDependantString works only for strings, and right now they are used only for images.
We could do what your example needs, but I think that Mark would object that this provides non linearities which will be hard for the AI to handle.
For an example about the format, look at the bowmen unit (and maybe also Siege Weapons) in the original military.xml file.

	02-03-2003 05:22									#101
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare We could do what your example needs, but I think that Mark would object that this provides non linearities which will be hard for the AI to handle.

Hi Laurent, glad you got your net glitches under control .

I do admit that I prefer as much as possible to have such things change smootly with the tech level, as you say. There can be some big nonlinearities in how things work, but we need to IMO keep them to a minimum and consider them carefully on a case-by-case basis. Seems to me in this case that units should just have a recovery stat or some such.


Thanks for the words of encouragement Felch X!

	06-03-2003 14:46									#102
	Suffering from ads?

I donīt really need that particular functionality; it was just an example. A much better way of doing that would be to make healafterfight an element attribute, so technology affects it the way it affects all other attributes.

I saw the multi-image examples before, but I had no reason to use them. Images were in such short supply that I couldnīt afford to use two images for one unit.

	07-03-2003 00:17									#103
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Hi Laurent, glad you got your net glitches under control

Not really I still have lots of problems...
I consider making healafterfight a function of techs in two ways: both attacker and defender-related. That way you would have steel weapons deadlier than clubs at Cajamarca (ok I am reading Guns Germs and Steel right now), and an increase in healing rates as the defender gets better medicine.

	07-03-2003 14:05									#104
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I consider making healafterfight a function of techs in two ways: both attacker and defender-related. That way you would have steel weapons deadlier than clubs at Cajamarca (ok I am reading Guns Germs and Steel right now), and an increase in healing rates as the defender gets better medicine.

Interesting proposal. The best way to do that IMO would be to assign a "wound" value to each element. This value would negate healafterfight in the same way that armorpen negates armor, and can of course increase with tech as all element attributes do.

There is the question of what to do if the wound value is bigger than the healing value. Should units suffer additional casualties after the battle is over, or should we keep a floor of zero for the adjusted healing value? I guess this is a tpoic for the military thread, though.

	28-12-2004 18:07									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

(Bump).
In Demo 8 comments thread, alms66 said, among other things, some tech related stuff:

quote: 2. Add a "required technology" tag to Specials, Regimes and Social Classes. This would allow the emergence of regimes over time, the emergence of the middle class, and specials to "popup" once certain tech levels were reached. 4. Divide the Combat activity into Naval, Ground, Air, and Siege Combat. 5. Change techs to NOT be open-ended. They should stop sucking in RPs when they hit 100 (or preferably, a globally set number). 6. Add Requirement tag to technologies (accepts specials or other technologies with levels). This tag keeps the technology from sucking up RPs.

#2 Yes, long term imo.
#4 Can be done. Siege is a bit problematic as it's a part of ground combat so when there's a wall, would you increase both siege and ground or siege only?
#5 I disagree. MoO had a very nice system where techs continues to give bonuses (reduction of size of ship hull/weapon/etc.) as tech went beyond the "max" level. That was good. There is an upkeep cost that prevents too much of a grwoth, I'd rather have this increase beyond a certain level, or increase exponentially at some point (currently we divide RPs by upkeep * knowledge, it could be upkeep * knowledge + smallNumber * square(knowledge) ). This I would agree with as the limit would nto be hard but there would effectively be a hard limit.
#6 Yes. Actually the equations allow this to happen, but it's really unclear: Helper effect is 1 + sum of helepereffect * (knowledge - requirement) for all helpers but a tech is only active if all its helpers are. A tech is active if its helpers are past a "startlevel" (Ts in the model at some time from what I read in the code). The problem is that this startlevel is systematically 0 so all techs are active, and that this startlevel doesn't depend on the helped tech but only the helper...
SO: I will add a tag in the helper tag so that the tech is inactive unless the helper reached that level. Since the word requirement is already used, I'll use start instead. If no start tag is specified, the value will be 0.

	28-12-2004 19:28									#106
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare #2 Yes, long term imo.

The specials would be good in the shorter term . The others can wait a bit.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare #4 Can be done. Siege is a bit problematic as it's a part of ground combat so when there's a wall, would you increase both siege and ground or siege only?

Personally, I would. IMO siege warfare is different enough to have its own activity, regardless of whether it increases both or not.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare #5 I disagree. MoO had a very nice system where techs continues to give bonuses (reduction of size of ship hull/weapon/etc.) as tech went beyond the "max" level. That was good. There is an upkeep cost that prevents too much of a grwoth, I'd rather have this increase beyond a certain level, or increase exponentially at some point (currently we divide RPs by upkeep * knowledge, it could be upkeep * knowledge + smallNumber * square(knowledge) ). This I would agree with as the limit would nto be hard but there would effectively be a hard limit.

I can live with it. From the model though, it seemed that the design called for it.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare #6 Yes. Actually the equations allow this to happen, but it's really unclear: Helper effect is 1 + sum of helepereffect * (knowledge - requirement) for all helpers but a tech is only active if all its helpers are. A tech is active if its helpers are past a "startlevel" (Ts in the model at some time from what I read in the code). The problem is that this startlevel is systematically 0 so all techs are active, and that this startlevel doesn't depend on the helped tech but only the helper... SO: I will add a tag in the helper tag so that the tech is inactive unless the helper reached that level. Since the word requirement is already used, I'll use start instead. If no start tag is specified, the value will be 0.

I'm not sure if you're saying that I can currently force a tech to be inactive or not...

	28-12-2004 19:49									#107
	Support Apolyton

I'm saying that you currently can't. I just made the change to the code though, so you will be able to if you retrieve the latest code version.
Having features (specials) depend on the tech is doable too at low cost. I'll be coding that.

	28-12-2004 20:22									#108
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Having features (specials) depend on the tech is doable too at low cost.

The more important one would be having tech depend on features (specials), so a civ's horsemanship tech, for example, is inactive until he gets some horses. Another example would be that until we can see uranium specials, our nuclear weapons tech should be inactive.

	28-12-2004 20:42									#109
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

On #5 I think also that there should be no limit on tech growth. If it is needed under certain circumstances we can discuss it. There was never meant to be a limit on tech afaik. 100 used to be a contemporary tech level for everything, but Richard threw out that assumption. But the game doesn't necessarily stop with contemporary tech anyway. Perhaps we need Activity tags that evolve with tech. The sucking up of available RPs by obsolete techs seems to be your big issue.

On specials being needed for tech, that's fine. There may be a distinction needed to be made between the special Sites being present and the special commodity existing in the economy. FE one can buy uranium and have an active nuclear program (causing some consternation in the modern world). The tags might be something like siteneede and specialneeded to distinguish them.

Seems to me a square could have both siege combat and regular at the same time (FE army attempting to relieve a besieged position), and siege and normal combat when relevant should be run simultaneously, but this discussion should be in the military thread.

	01-01-2005 12:36									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Regarding the new start tag, there's one thing that we'll need to add to this (in the long run). We need an OR tag, so we could have something like this:

code:

<technology>
  <name>TechZ</name>
  <tier>2</tier>
  <growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
  <upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
  <helper>
    <name>HelperA</name>
    <requirement>0.0</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
    <start>0.5</start>
    <OR>
    <name>HelperB</name>
    <requirement>0.0</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
    <start>0.5</start>
  </helper>
</technology>

code:

<technology>
  <name>TechZ</name>
  <tier>2</tier>
  <growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
  <upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredA</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
    <OR>
    <name>RequiredB</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <helper>
    <name>HelperA</name>
    <requirement>0.0</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
  </helper>
</technology>

Last edited by alms66 on 15-01-2005 at 03:14

	01-01-2005 14:50									#111
	Increase the size of your Attachments

A requirement that doesn't help is easy: Put an effect of 0.0.
As for the OR tag, can you give an example where it'd be useful?
Note that this OR is not necessary if both help as you can moslty simulate it with an intermediary tech:

code:

<technology>
  <name>IntermediateTechZ</name>
  <tier>2</tier>
  <growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
  <upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
  <helper>
    <name>HelperA</name>
    <requirement>0.49</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
    <name>HelperB</name>
    <requirement>0.49</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
  </helper>
</technology>

<technology>
  <name>TechZ</name>
  <tier>2</tier>
  <growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
  <upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
  <helper>
    <name>IntermediateTechZ</name>
    <requirement>0.0</requirement>
    <start>0.1</start> <! -- may need tweaking here -->
    <effect>0.5</effect>
  </helper>
</technology>

	01-01-2005 15:11									#112
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare A requirement that doesn't help is easy: Put an effect of 0.0.

Doh! I should have thought of that!

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare As for the OR tag, can you give an example where it'd be useful?

I'm actually thinking of doing a path of the tech tree that branches off of the 'settled' path for nomads. These nomads would have to have a way to get back onto the main path eventually, so I'm thinking that the only way to do it is to have an "or" situation somewhere in the tech tree.
I'll get back to you with something more specific later.

	02-01-2005 10:08									#113
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by alms66 I'm actually thinking of doing a path of the tech tree that branches off of the 'settled' path for nomads.

It seems to me that nomads, esp. like Huns and Mongols are best simulated with the same tree as others. However they generate massive numbers of RPs in areas like horse domestication, combat, land transport, hunting, herding, etc. That would give them a significant lead in those areas, and the need to trade for other items. Lack of science and other settled arts would provide a ceiling beyond which they couldn't go. Sounds like it could be pretty realistic without alternative tech branches.

	03-01-2005 17:03									#114
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Couldn't you simulate alternative prereqs about this way:

code:

<technology>
  <name>TechZ</name>
  <tier>2</tier>
  <growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
  <upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredA</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredB</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <helper>
    <name>HelperA</name>
    <requirement>0.0</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
  </helper>
</technology>

	03-01-2005 17:21									#115
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That indicates, to me, that both RequiredA and RequiredB are needed, not that either of them is needed.

	03-01-2005 17:39									#116
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Sorry, you're right, I should've made things a bit more clear:

code:

<technology>
  <name>TechZ</name>
  <tier>2</tier>
  <growthrate>1.0</growthrate>
  <upkeep>1.0</upkeep>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredA</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredB</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
    <name>RequiredC</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <helper>
    <name>HelperA</name>
    <requirement>0.0</requirement>
    <effect>0.5</effect>
  </helper>
</technology>

	08-01-2005 01:07									#117
	Suffering from ads?

Max sinister, this is very much the
OR
helper1
helper2
/OR I was talking about :
I need different tags because the things are really different to me in the code beneath. It could be like this:

code:
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredA</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <or>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredB</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  <prerequisite>
    <name>RequiredC</name>
    <level>0.5</level>
  </prerequisite>
  </or>

	15-01-2005 03:43									#118
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare As for the OR tag, can you give an example where it'd be useful?

One possible example is the Domestication tech. We could require the player to have access to horses (special), Camels (special) or elephants (special) before being able to research it. This is a possible example, because currently I have Horse Domestication, Camel Domestication & Elephant Domestication, but I could potentially drop those three if the OR tag was available.


I've also thought up some more functionalities for the model:
First, we need a way to set the start level of a tech, just in case we don't want it to start at 0 (for future scenarios that don't start at the dawn of time).

Second, we could add the ability to cease the growth of a technology if some other technology or some special is not available. For example, you could have TechA require TechB (or SpecialA) in order to advance beyond level x. Once the requirement is met, the tech begins to grow again.

Third, would we want the ability to grant an instant boost to another tech once a certain level is reached? For example, TechA has reached level x, this instantly causes a boost of 0.5 levels to TechB.

And Finally, It would be great if we could write a "technology event" directly into the technology tag. For example, one event could be to pop up a bulletin saying that the tech has been discoverd and what the tech does (the new interface could solve this particular problem though, or even putting the information into the event window could solve the problem- this is just an example of an existing event tag that might be used). Another example would be adding or subtracting a bonus to a hard-coded game function (this may require some very minor rewriting of said game functions - possibilities include population growth rate, population limit for migrations, etc.).

	15-01-2005 20:53									#119
	Suffering from ads?

quote: First, we need a way to set the start level of a tech, just in case we don't want it to start at 0 (for future scenarios that don't start at the dawn of time).

You can do this per civ in a scenario. It requires doing it for each civ, though. Then starting at 1 or 0 is a convention fro knowledge a the start so it doesn't matter that much what the start value actually is.

quote: Second, we could add the ability to cease the growth of a technology if some other technology or some special is not available. For example, you could have TechA require TechB (or SpecialA) in order to advance beyond level x. Once the requirement is met, the tech begins to grow again.

Sounds reasonable. I'd ask for details if I had time to code that but I don't.

quote: Third, would we want the ability to grant an instant boost to another tech once a certain level is reached? For example, TechA has reached level x, this instantly causes a boost of 0.5 levels to TechB.

Check dawn for events that do something like that. You can have an event that brings research points to an activity, and an event can be triggered by a tech reaching a given level.

quote: And Finally, It would be great if we could write a "technology event" directly into the technology tag. For example, one event could be to pop up a bulletin saying that the tech has been discoverd and what the tech does (the new interface could solve this particular problem though, or even putting the information into the event window could solve the problem- this is just an example of an existing event tag that might be used). Another example would be adding or subtracting a bonus to a hard-coded game function (this may require some very minor rewriting of said game functions - possibilities include population growth rate, population limit for migrations, etc.).

This should indeed be possible to include in the same file as the tech. The only problem is the current version requires a civilization recipient, and in the actions, one should beware of using that same civ. So we'd need some more tags to allow one to pass the civ from the event to the action...
The only limiting factor to these development request is thus the time to do them. Thus don't expect to see them any soon as I'm a bit busy, but I think they are good enhancements.

	16-01-2005 10:00									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare You can do this per civ in a scenario. It requires doing it for each civ, though. Then starting at 1 or 0 is a convention fro knowledge a the start so it doesn't matter that much what the start value actually is.

Yes, I know about doing it on a per civ basis, but this will be needed when the early tech tree is done, because, as I've said elsewhere, I expect that some techs will not start at zero, to give some moderate amount of knowledge to beginning civs, while keeping "minor civs" a bit further back (or at 0 on those techs).

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Sounds reasonable. I'd ask for details if I had time to code that but I don't.

I don't have any specific applications for it in mind just yet, but I'm sure I'll come up with some later.

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Check dawn for events that do something like that. You can have an event that brings research points to an activity, and an event can be triggered by a tech reaching a given level.

Yes, I'm fairly familiar with Dawn's events now. This is just one of those things that will ease the scenario design workload in the long run (by saving the designer the trouble of flipping back and forth between tech and events - this comment applies equally well to the final "request").

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare This should indeed be possible to include in the same file as the tech. The only problem is the current version requires a civilization recipient, and in the actions, one should beware of using that same civ. So we'd need some more tags to allow one to pass the civ from the event to the action... The only limiting factor to these development request is thus the time to do them. Thus don't expect to see them any soon as I'm a bit busy, but I think they are good enhancements.

I think this particular one will give a great deal of power to scenario designers, especially if we developed an event that could grant bonuses (or penalties) to hard coded formulas. I think we've still got a long way to go before truly needing this ability.