This is very important as the tech model more than any other model (Social/Cultural coming in a very close 2nd cept it doesn't affect the disaster model as far as i can tell). Anyway this is why input is VERY important. I know TK posted in one of his models that he should try and work with me, but in reality everyone here does to some extent (cept maybe the multiplayer people). The sooner u respond and clearer u respond the sooner i can get the new model out so u can critique it.

The reason I'm asking before i release it is because its much easier to incorperate it now when i haven't really begun the actuall "assembledge" of the new model (Like i said earlier its a complete redo of the model almost)

I know I am rambling but even if u have a small idea and think it doesn't matter or someone else will propose it or I already will put it in there, still post it because we are all human (I'm assuming) and can easily miss something someone else missed.

Can you at least give us a text list of the techs you have in the new model? I think its a Huge waste of everyone's time for them to submit to you long lists of technologies required when in fact you probably already have 90-95% of them in there...

Also if u have any future tech ideas (near or far) post them, however try not to base it too much off of popular TV shows, movies, etc. I've only made one exception and that's with psychohistory (Isaac Asimov'f Foundation series) because it is now offically considered a type of science. More general ideas are okay, but nothing like Dylithium Crystals or Death Stars.

Anyway I do however have some problems with the current model. I do not mean to be overly critical but you seem to put way to much emphasis on feudal japanese technologies, ala the samurai, katana, and ninjitsu. Personally I do not feel that these technologies had any real impact on any civilization other than the Japanese. Also you are probably under the delusion that the samurai was the culmination of swordsmanship. As both a Kendo and Iai-Jutsu practioner (katna swordsmanship) I would have to disagree historically speaking, raipers were more lethal than the katana. In fact protugese sailors considered it unsportsmanlike to chalange samurai to duels due to the inferiority of the Katana to the Rapier. I would like to point out that this is mainly in terms of the way the weapons were used, the Katana being a cutting weapon, while the raiper is a puncture weapon. Anyway what I propose is this. Drop the Katana etc techs. But create an advanced swordsmanship tech that would cover highly evolved forms of sword combat, ala the samuria and the fencer.

Also in terms of the Handgun technologies, these were pretty much concurent with rifle level fireams that were made at the same time, and as such I just vote to amalgamate them into the rifle sized firearms.

I also vote to get rid of Muskets or Flint lock rifles since for all practical purposes they are the same thing (I know they were matchlocks first, but in terms of game effects it would be identical)

Also the Siege engine and Catapult dichotomy seems again too overspecialized. I vote to amalgamte them or if you want a technical diference divide them into Torsion based and gravity based siege engines.

Umm.. We also need to incorporate communications techs into the military units but that will have to wait until we actually have some units...

Thats it for now

Here is my best guess on cultural attributes. I took some from the list in the social model thread, and added a few of my own that I think our useful for the economy and government models. We might need to prove in this list a bit, and I'm sure I've missed a few things also. Anyway, I think most of these things are fairly self-explanatory. I will give a brief explanation if I think it's necessary.

nationalism/provincialism
authority acceptance
traditionalism
cultures view of best type of government
cultures view of what occupations are best/most noble and worst (for figuring where your best and brightest go)
desire to invest
compassion for the poor
militarism
asceticism

Hope this is what you are looking for!

a number say 1-100 1 being provincial totally, 100 being nationalism. This is just an example and any range will do.

cultures view of best type of government
cultures view of what occupations are best/most noble and worst (for figuring where your best and brightest go)

The cultures view of the best type of government simply does not fit within your scheme. This will be a multidimensional characteristic stating on average the people's preference for a particular form of government. Why don't you just skip it for now.

RP=Reseach points
CL=Current tech level
P=social percentage
M=Max social level

The 2 with rp calculations can be done multiple times.

it should be:
RP = ((P x (CL + 1)) + ((M - P + 1) / (CL + 1))
Max social level is whatever number (usually 100 from what u said) is the highest that particular part of the cultural model can reach.

So for example agriculture is at 10%

and for simplicities sake we just use 2 modifieres, one that benifits and one that doesn't. The max value is 100. The one that benifits is 30 and the one that hinders is at 50.

RP = ((50 x (10 + 1)) + ((100 - 30 + 1) / (10 + 1))

Many of your concerns have already been addressed in the new tech model. I have a preliminary organization plan for the military techs, but until I get the units list I can't complete it.

The general idea in the new model is that each application comes with a certain level of a basic technology. For example:

Leather Armor: Fabric/Leather 10%
Mail Armor: Metalworking 25%
Plate Armor: Metalworking 40%, Mechanical Engineering
Spear: Woodworking 2%, Metalworking
Sword: Metalworking 20%
Longsword: Metalworking 35%
Bow: Woodworking 5%
Crossbow: Mechanical Engineering 25%
Musket: Chemistry 30%, Metalworking 30%
Rifle: Chemistry 40%, Metalworking 40%, Physics(Mechanics) 30%
Hand Grenades: Chemistry 40%

The numbers will need to be refined, but you get the idea. The specifics of tech acquisition are more complicated, but you can see that any specific unit or application you ask for will be easily put into the tech tree by giving it a certain set of prerequisites.

Outsdanding!

I really like this idea for a tech model. My concerns are will every civ with a certain % in a specific technology have the available advances...

I.e. I got bows at 75% does that mean I get 75% of all possible Bow units (I realize other techs are necessary for some but I'm trying to keep it simple) Or do I only get a few random (or otherwise determined) techs?

Also As for how the mil model / unit thing is going.

Way It looks now is this:
The map unit is a task force (TF) Made up of units (Rougly 5000 man units in modern era)
Each unit has a certain number of elements (Depednd on the unit) These are things like an infantry element, an artillery elemnt, a scout element, an armor element and so forth (we don't have a scale yet for elements (couple hundred guys seems likely)
What this means for the tech standpoint is alot of weapons that can be modeled.
Also we are toying with the idea of user defined tech, I.e. The musket armed charioteer... (This is going to be discussed but it is a possibility)
I like the idea of abstracting the better crosbow (etc) as a percentage, and this can pretty easily be modeled by the current comabt system (still in devlopment).
Anyway we shall try to get a list of stuff over to you guys once the system is a bit more worked out.

Those techs represent the relevant basic tech. So ur bows wouldn't be at 75, but woodworking would be.

Anyway u prob wouldn't and here's why:

Like my example with the katana, u'd only get that if u had an oriental type culture, but the rapier would be for european types.

I don't wanna be so critical about your current model.(For most of it, I really have no objection. And for some, I really like the idea such as basic tech concept.)

I don't think it is fair to have a weapon like Katana which do not have much impact on other oriental Civs. You would put Katana for other oriental Civs and Rapier for European Civs. I don't think other European players would object to have a Rapier as thier weapon but Other Oriental players would be not happy to have Katana as thier weapon.

I think that to be a Civ or nation-specific unit or weapon they have to have some impact on other Civs or Nations such as Phalanx and Legion.

It is a Portugese-introduced musket that gave an edge for Japanese ground force when they invaded Korea during the 7years of war. After the war the Koreans made vigorous attempts to copy the musket not Katana.

Even in internal unification process of Japan, it is the musket which enable to accomplish such a process not Katana. With weapons like Katana I much doubt it about that the Japanese could finally got unified country(if possible in much slower phase)

Also I don't like the idea of having a unit of Samurai. Just like any other Oriental Civs(Only agriculture based economy), the main body of Japanese army was peasant conscripts called Ashigaru(literllay means foot soldier)and their main weapon were spear. Samurais were like lieutenant, captain and general for thier commanding structure. It would be weird to have a unit comprised of wholly lieutenants or captains. Their mounted force would look like samurai but they were called Kibatai(literlly means cavalry)

If you really wanna keep Katana and Samurai in your model, I suggest that you include other Ancient Oriental civs' weapons and formation.

For example;
Manchurian: 8 banner cavalry
Mongol:Magudai
Korean:Sam-Ji(Trident spear), Ironclad(surprise! World first but sailed not steam engined)
Japanese:Tetpodai(Musketeer)
Chinese:Mao,Kuk,Chang(All spears not pike as they can not fend off cavalry charge)
Ren-Nao(Closed to European ballista)
I can't think of South-East Asian weapons. sorry.

Wow, that would be some fun to other players but for some, just bunch of similar weapons in different names. Frankly, I like the idea of generalisation and simplification of weapons like just calling spear and sword or long spear and improved sword.

So if you want to have generalised terms go with it or Civ-specific that's also alright as long as you are not favouring only one Civ.

Thanks

I think that to be a Civ or nation-specific unit or weapon they have to have some impact on other Civs or Nations such as Phalanx and Legion.

It is a Portugese-introduced musket that gave an edge for Japanese ground force when they invaded Korea during the 7years of war. After the war the Koreans made vigorous attempts to copy the musket not Katana.

Even in internal unification process of Japan, it is the musket which enable to accomplish such a process not Katana. With weapons like Katana I much doubt it about that the Japanese could finally got unified country(if possible in much slower phase)
-------
Ok, but can u tell me any generally used oriental weapons. I know a few pretty much were such as shurikens and beu. Here's the thing: Up until modern times, Japan, China and SE Asia will be lumped together as Oriental type civilizations for model simplicity.

Note: Although the Katana was used mostly in Japan, other oriental nations did use them.

Also I don't like the idea of having a unit of Samurai. Just like any other Oriental Civs(Only agriculture based economy), the main body of Japanese army was peasant conscripts called Ashigaru(literllay means foot soldier)and their main weapon were spear. Samurais were like lieutenant, captain and general for thier commanding structure. It would be weird to have a unit comprised of wholly lieutenants or captains. Their mounted force would look like samurai but they were called Kibatai(literlly means cavalry)
------
Here's the thing: Most european armies also didn't have huge number of Knights and relied mainly on infantry, although usually not peasant infantry.

For example;
Manchurian: 8 banner cavalry
Mongol:Magudai
Korean:Sam-Ji(Trident spear), Ironclad(surprise! World first but sailed not steam engined)
Japanese:Tetpodai(Musketeer)
Chinese:Mao,Kuk,Chang(All spears not pike as they can not fend off cavalry charge)
Ren-Nao(Closed to European ballista)
I can't think of South-East Asian weapons. sorry.
-----
Thanks. That helps. I may know someone who does.

Generally, there were two styles of civ model in Oriental world.

One is the northern nomadic tribe style:
1.Main economy:Fur trading,stockbreeding in large scale
2.Class structure:Men=Warriors,hunters,shepherds
3.Army:All warriors are mounted!(No infantry element)
4.Government:Tribes-Divided(struggle for survival)-united(A conquering machine)
5.Culture:small or no time to cultivate(inferior to agiculture based economy)
6.Examples:Manchurian,Mongol,etc

Another is agriculture based style:
1.Main economy:specialised goods trading, vast amount of grain production
2.Class structure:Scholars,farmers,craftsmen, merchants,priests
3.Army:small number of elite standing army(Peace time)mixed with large number of peasant conscript(War time)
4.Government:Centralised(Emperor,king,shogun)
5.Culture:enough time to cultivate(rich culture)
6.Examples:China,Korea,Japan,Vietnam,Siam,etc

The power of nomadic kindoms comes from their strong cavalry force and that of more civilised kingdoms comes from sheer number of conscripts(mostly spearman). It had been a duel between the quality and quantity.

I'd like to see this aspect to be reflected in the game. Just imagine that a Mongol player assembling his hordes and waiting for right moment to attack while a Chinese player pumping out his peasant population for oncoming onslaught(ready for full mobilisation).

In present tech tree, there are pikeman and knight elements for European Civs(what a well balanced structure that is).Each element is specilised so any players would produce both of them. I mean there won't be any abandoned or ill-treated unit.

Mounted Archer would be one to be reckoned as primary unit of nomadic kingdoms but what unit for the other agriculture based Civs?
Spearman? Who would produce such a weak unit when there is a stronger unit available to produce such as Samurai?. Furthermore, having a taskforce or army group of samurai will be invincible and historically inaccurate.

The dilemma can be solved by raising the cost of maintaining a large standing army(Can be applied to both Western and Eastern Civs)

The point is that there is no standing army for the nomads since their armies do not get paid regulary so plunder is essential to boost morale whereas a standing army has to be paid and fed to maintain its discipline and morale.The regular standing army may plunder,too but that will decrease its discipline. So for other more civilised kingdoms, there will be small number of elite force with large peasant population waiting to be mobilised for whatever purpose such as grand project like building a wonder or conscription for a war.

There should be a penalty to mobilise large number of peasant for a long time such as social unrest or crop failure.

So what goodies for the nomad civ players? when there is no peasant population present to perform lots of nice things(building wonders & total defense).Conquer! Steal! Aren't they good words for them? With supeiority in military aspect, it will be fun to conquer other civilised nations.

With such a threat,the other civilised civs have spent some time to build fortifications to slow down nomads invasion.

I'd like to propose that a civs or nations can have thier own arsenal to store whatever weapons they produce such as spears,sword,Bows,etc. When army is mobilised the weapons in the arsenal will equip the conscripts. That will further reduce for the need to maintain large number of standing army.

But each weapons will need to have training requirement like:

spear:little requirement
Sword:effect reduced if non-masters use
Bow:Longer time for training

So if there is no modern trained reserve system, spear would be a good choice for raw recruits during Ancient time.

By the way, is there any world event in the game model? If not, I have some suggestion.

1.Olympics/Other sporting event
2.A World's fair/Expo
3.World conference/convention/prize/award
(Political,scientific,ecological,economic,etc)

1.Olympics/Other sporting event:
One of candidate cities will be chosen and it should be optional to take part in the game. The holding city's trade will be boosted by increase of tourists. The game results will reflect the Civs relevant tech level and social interest(more athletic interested society means more gold medals).Good results will increase the civ's status or some sort of bonus for the sociey(decreased discontent for specific period of time)

2.A World's fair/Expo
One of cities from tech-leading civs will be chosen. Also the effect of boosting Trade will be added. Competition should be held to get more score for most advanced Civs for all sorts of area of tech. Winning Civs will receive some bonus in research fields(Scientists produce more reaserch points.etc)and increase in status.

3.World conference.etc
politicians/scientists/leading coporate executives/entertainers will exchange their ideas and talk about the agenda.
The more entertainers you have, the more chance to get a award.more scientists more chance to get a prize.

Times up I have to go sorry.

An official welcome to the forum!

I'm trying to wrap my mind around the tech system. I'll throw what I think are the basics and you can shoot them down if I am wrong.

We will have a set of basic tech areas. These will increase gradually over time. Certain developments will become available when the required levels of base knowledge are reached.

Assuming I am right so far are these tech developments automatically discovered or do they still rely on that fairly random spark of brilliance. An example of this is the wheel barrow, it requires "the Wheel", "basic Wood work" and maybe "basic physics". Most Civs would reach this stage very quickly in the game. Historically though the Wheelbarrow was a middle ages invention probably brought over from China where it was invented around 300BC. My point is that just because you have the basic knowledge to develop a device etc does not mean you get it.

Will there be a randomness factor for a development actually being accepted? (This may already have been mentioned somewhere but I do not remember seeing it.)

Also item/improv/structures are developed seperatly. So just because u might have "automotive technolgoy" doesn't mean u automatically get cars and trucks, but they have a slightly higher prereq, but not too much. BTW the wheelbarrel would also be considered an item.

------
Will there be a randomness factor for a development actually being accepted? (This may already have been mentioned somewhere but I do not remember seeing it.)
------
It hasn't until the above paragraph.

-----
A follow up question is the idea of lost knowledge. The greeks developed a light hunting crossbow around 500 BC. It was not particularly powerful but the potential for improvement was there. The greeks then forgot about it and the Chinese reinvented it later followed by the Europeans. Is there a loss of knowledge concept? (It has been eluded to, but what is the process that is being looked at?)
------
Definatly. First off to be a "lost tech" u need to have discovered it first. Once that is achieved so long as u keep the all ness areas at or above the prereq mark they won't be lost. However, if it drops below, u don't automatically loose it, but u can't develope any more if its an item/improv/structure. If its an application tech like genetics, ur people don't quite understand it, but because of old documents lying around they know it exists and understand a little about it. Basic techs that have other basic tech prereq. will begin to drop rapidly if this happes. I'd say to show this we could increase the rate of increasing the tech levels by 1% by multiplying the end result by 10, then if they actually would be able to go to the next percentage, they can't, but instead just stay the same. If things continue to decline, ur ability to repair and maintain becomes worse and worse until the amount u understand it reaches 0, in which case it is then considered "lost." "Lost" techs must be redisovered as if they were never before discovered. However if ur tech levels rise up at/above the prereq. before the tech becomes "lost," u can once again use it normally.

------------------
One a differnt note:
Will it be too complicated to impliment decimal points for the % system, ie 25.43 (no further)? Both me and rich perfer this over integer model, but if its too complicated we'll leave it at integers.

Also, if anyone has any items/improv/structures they want to be put on in the game, please respond.

items: weapons, carts, statues, cars, planes, etc.

improv: anything that improvs a civ that could be seen from the surface other than structures (also anything below the surface that may have similar counterparts) Irrigation, canals, sewer systems, etc.

stuctures: buildings mainly. These don't have to be surface oriented. They can be in the air, water, space, or below ground.

BTW I don't think %s are very 'sexy'. Even though they Are %s could we just start calling them levels from 0 - 100+?... What do you guys think?

I think the fractional levels 22.34 are a good idea for continuity of the system. We just won't tell the player... Maybe we shouldn't even tell them 22 as F_Smith says. But we can work that out in playtesting.

F_Smith:

That makes sense. Altho (and probably because I'm more a real-time/wargame/tactical-type player/programmer) I still feel that a reliance on numbers is the wrong way to go.

Personally, I don't like being told "Unit X has 90% experience". I prefer something like "Unit X is a veteran unit". The numbers, to me, are just too sterile and un-specific. You have to memorize what each % means. For a behind-the-scenes system like overall tech ability, I guess it's okay, but I would still prefer a more specific, realistic approach. Something along the lines of:

• You have 15 universities engaged in research. One of those has had a breakthru and mastered atomic physics (see weapons labs).
  
• You have 35 type-4 steel mills. They are somewhat experienced at producing steel, and are beginning to find ways to make steel lighter and stronger (level 3 steel is approx 1 year away).
  
• You have 2 weapons research labs. They have both mastered ballistics, and are now beginning to understand how to make a nuclear fission bomb (level 1 nuke bomb approx 2 years away).
  
• You have a thriving electronics industry. They have mastered the public electric lighting, and are now working on 'television camera'.
  
• You have 3 fledgling aircraft manufacturers. They have mastered simple flight, and are now beginning to explore basic aerodynamics (level 2 flight is 5 years away).
  

I usually prefer specifics over aggregate statistics. Behind the scenes it can be handled any way you think best. But to enhance game playing, I would like the model design to be focused on the player, not the number-crunching game engine. Instead of %s, I'd give each 'level' a name and a realistic effect. Not just a % better chance to win.

But again, this is just my mind tossing it's cookies onto a page.

Chopping up tech progress into 'levels' will generate one of two problems:
If all techs at a certain level are the same, you have the odd situation where you research for 30 years and your ability to do something doesn't improve at all, and then that thing is suddenly a level higher and much more powerful overnight.
If percentages are kept the same but groups of percentages are put into a category called a level, then the description will be useless. If one thing is more powerful than another but thery are described as being at the same level, the player will get frustrated.

You may not have read my post saying that the percentages are on a logarithmic scale. Each ten percent increase in a tech represents approximately a doubling in knowledge or skill. So a society with 70% Metalworking makes much better ships than a society with 60% metalworking. If they were both described as "level four metalworking" the player would wonder why one is twice as good as another.

And if all things of a certain level really are equal, then you have the odd situation where there are only five levels of ability in the entire course of human history. Each level would then be about four times as good as the previous one. That would generate huge amounts of micromanagement as players tried to push something exactly to the next level. But with a percentage system, players can rest easy knowing that each turn brings about the same level of improvement, assuming that the ability to generate RP's is growing constantly as they manage their civ well.

I agree that the approach ya'll are using certainly will work. And I think it will be fun, and playable.

But I still disagree on some of it's strengths and weaknesses.

First, I agree that long use of a skill would perfect your abilities in a specific tech (as you said, working with steel for 100 years makes your steel 'skill' much better than some civ that just discovered steel). But I disagree that this should boost your 'tech' in metalworking. Just your skill/experience in steel-working. I don't think that an experienced iron-working civ should be 79% metalworking tech and then gain steel at 80%. To me, that's metalworking 'skill' -- an entirely different stat. I think ya'll are making an error in rolling skill level into the tech level. I see 'tech' as a 'knowledge' -- tech should only go up when new concepts are learned.

I also feel that 'levels' makes the jump in techs much more understandable than %'s. 80% being 8 times greater than 50% seems very counter-intuitive (and number dependent -- you still have to memorize what each % gains you), while reaching 'level 4 metalworking' gaining you steel (v. 'level 3 metalworking which only allowed you to work iron) seems much more understandable to me.

I would personally prefer if ya'll were starting with a tech 'tree' system based upon knowledges, and ironing out the inter-relations of the techs (for example, specific bonuses/abilities granted by each tech), and then putting numbers/algorithms behind the system once it's all done. I feel that the algorithms behind the scenes are the simplest part, and the real hard work of the tech system will be in how the techs inter-relate. That is the 'system' part of this, to me.

Altho what ya'll have is certainly fine. But my favorite games (Masters of Orion 2, Age of Empires, StarCraft, etc) have been the ones that used tech systems in which one tech leads to another, and multiple techs combine in realistic and interesting ways to create new techs based upon what the tech really is, not just some arbitrary %. The relative %s and numbers can be derived after you decide what 'knowledges' or 'techs' will be used, and how they will inter-relate.

Personally, I think you should post the techs on your list a couple at a time, perhaps in 'catagories' of some sort. I think this list is where the real work of the tech system is going to begin, and that after you iron out this list the %s and algorithms behind the scenes will write themselves. Any % system arrived at now will almost certainly change a dozen times, as new tech ideas pop up tech by tech.

One thing I'd like to address here now before it gets out of hand is that creating an item doesn't raise/lower any levels per say, but could help/hinder the increasing of it. Also the way I evinsion tech model (and i generally think rich and mark do too) is that the basic techs and the %s are representative of how throughout most of civilization technology doesn't come in leaps and bounds, but through the gradual process of learning ideas then refining those ideas and expanding the limits slowly. Sometimes there are major jumps and the way we have it set up now it isn't too difficult to add that in, but the way ur propsing doesn't allow for the reverse, ie the gradual accumulation of knowledge. So FE Metalworking (which BTW is now called metallurgy) at 15% isn't as good as 18% and a model based on levels (which is in demos 1-4) couldn't show this slight improvement.