Justification for Changes

In most tech trees, all techs are discrete units that are linked together by prerequisites. For a game with the depth and complexity of Clash, this would lead to many problems. The main one is complexity. A tech tree with hundreds of techs linked together would be difficult for the player to learn and very difficult to construct. It would also be vulnerable to bugs and gameplay problems. A similar problem is one of flexibility. Such a tree is very hard to adjust. It would make tech tree creation or modification very difficult for the Clash team and anyone who wanted to make a scenario.

Another problem is historical accuracy. In the normal tech tree, all knowledge comes in big chunks and never improves after you get it. Your metallurgy skill is the same in 2000 BC and 2000 AD. This is unrealistic. Historically, technologies are constantly improving in a continuous fashion.

To reflect this and avoid the problems with a standard tech tree, I have created a tree that splits technologies into basic technologies and application technologies. Basic techs were already being used before I started working on this tree, and I saw that the idea could be expanded to almost all types of knowledge. The current form of the tech system is mostly my design, but many of the basic ideas came from other people. LGJ’s editing has improved the tree a lot, and I expect that the suggestions of other people will also be very helpful.

My main innovation was the structure of applications. Originally, Basic technologies served as RP multipliers for items on a standard tech chart. I saw that there would be many advantages to making applications have a prerequisite of a certain percentage of basic tech rather than another application. This solves the problems of complexity and flexibility that plague most tech trees. Rather than making a complex chain of applications, a thing is simply assigned a prerequisite of some percentage of one or more basic technologies. This makes it amazingly easy to modify the tech tree and add units. Now, we can allow other model leaders to give us a list of technologies that they want and easily put those technologies in the tree. With the normal tech tree type, we would have to force other people to use the technologies that we put in at the beginning. The current tech tree model is flexible enough to be easily changed by the Clash team and any scenario designer.

Description of the System

Basic techs are broad, contiguous techs that are defined as percentages from zero to a hundred. Zero percent represents no knowledge, 1% represents minimal knowledge, and 100% represents the highest level of publicly known application as of January 1, 2000. The scale is logarithmic, with each 10% increase representing approximately a doubling in knowledge or skill. This might not be entirely accurate, but it works for now and we can rescale it later.

Note that a basic tech like Mechanical Engineering is not just a set of theories and equations. The techs are also meant to represent experimentation, trials, prototypes, and the study of potential applications. So by Mechanical Engineering 50% your people have already drawn plans for a new type of machinery, built a prototype of that device, and figured out what it could be good for. At that point you get the message that some new thing is available. The practical part of things is already included in all of the techs. They are not just academic disciplines; they also represent the completed and tested plans for doing things.

Basic technology levels are increased by spending Research Points, or RP’s. These are generated by your civ, and the amount your civilization generates should grow constantly. Because the rate of knowledge growth is exponential and the rate of RP production is also close to exponential, the number of RP’s spent for an increase in percentage must also grow exponentially. Also, you must spend RP’s to keep your tech levels from falling. This represents the effort put into teaching the people your civ’s scientific, cultural, and technical knowledge. The amount of effort you put into education is proportional to the amount you know, so you have to spend RP’s based on the level of the tech.

So we have a differential equation of the form
dP=(RP-a(bP^n))(c/(eP)^m)
where a, b, c, e, n, and m are constants, P is the current percentage, dP is the change in that percentage every turn, and RP is the amount of RP's spent on the tech in one turn.
If RP is zero, the tech declines at a rate proportional to the level of the tech. If RP=xP, there is no growth. You can see that the input required to keep the tech level constant increases as the tech does, to simulate the greater amount of teaching required. In between these two, the decline is less rapid but still present. If the first term is greater than zero, then the tech rises, but the rate of the rise slows as the tech level increases.

Specific applications have percent prerequisites in one or more basic techs, as well as other possible requirements. For example, a Fission Power Plant would need something around Atomic Applications 80%, Architecture 65%, Chemistry 75%, Civil Engineering 60%, Mechanical Engineering 60%, and Access to Uranium. The exact percentages will have to be determined by playtesting.

The method of acquiring these basic techs is a matter that has been disputed. It has been said that these should be researched separately as individual technologies. I contend that this is entirely unnecessary and would lead to excessive micromanagement. There will be hundreds of basic techs, and requiring them to be researched separately would require an enormous amount of micromanagement. The research of the application is already included in the basic tech; it is not like you are jumping directly from theory to application.
LJG believes that there should be some randomness in the acquisition of these techs. I wanted them to be given automatically whenever the prerequisites are reached. I have come up with a possible compromise. Rather than simply having a computer generated random number decide if you get the tech, there is an "inventor window" starting about 5% before the tech prerequisites. During that window, the computer checks social conditions to see if you have a society that encourages invention. If you do, there is a large chance that the thing gets invented ahead of time. But if you have a repressive society, the thing will probably not get invented until you hit the prerequisite. This adds some randomness while still ensuring that the player will always get the thing at the prerequisite. It is also a way of rewarding the player for having a good society. For more information about how the “inventor window” system might work, look at my now-defunct thread, “Proposed Technology Modification,” from November 13, 1999. The information and a discussion about it is also in the middle of page 2 of the “Tech Research Chart 2” thread. I don’t know if the extra coding is worth it, but if everyone wants randomness in tech assignments this would do a good job of supplying it.

Basic technologies also have prerequisites. Prerequisites that have a percentage beside them are required prerequisites. You need the listed percentage of these technologies before you can get any farther in the tech. For example, you need 70% in your Biology tech before you can advance beyond 70% in agriculture. This is because 70% Biology represents Genetic Engineering, and agriculture beyond 70% needs genetically engineered crop plants.

Other technologies listed are simply helper techs that increase the rate at which you learn the tech. The rate increase is based on the percentage of the other technology; if you have a high percentage of a helper tech, you learn the technology faster. All prerequisites are also helper techs, so if you had 90% Biology your Agriculture tech would advance more quickly than if you only had 75% Biology. Applications can also have helper techs that are not required prerequisites. Also, it is possible for applications to have other applications as helper techs. For example, your Fission power plants are better if you also have other types of power plants.

Specifics

Some examples of applications are:

Abolishment of Slavery: Philosophy 50%, Religion 40%
Bow: Woodworking 5%
Capitalism: Economics 40%
Centralized Government: Government 15%
Composite Bow: Chemistry 15%
Conscription: Government 1%, Tactics 1%
Crossbow: Mechanical Engineering 25%
Despotism: Government 5%
Democracy: Government 60%, Philosophy 40%
Environmentalism: Ecology 50%
Feudalism: Government 30%
Fundamentalism: Government 30%, Religion 30%
Hand Grenades: Chemistry 40%
Human Rights: Philosophy 40%, Religion 30%
Leather Armor: Textiles 10%
Longsword: Metallurgy 35%
Mail Armor: Metallurgy 25%
Musket: Chemistry 30%, Metallurgy 30%
Plate Armor: Metallurgy 40%, Mechanical Engineering
Public Education: 30% in all core sciences, Government 50%
Representative Government: Government 50%, Philosophy 30%
Rifle: Chemistry 40%, Metallurgy 40%, Physics(Mechanics) 30%
Rights for Labor Class: Philosophy 30%, Religion 20%
Spear: Woodworking 2%, Metallurgy
Standing Army: Government 1%, Tactics 1%
Sword: Metallurgy 20%

Note that gaining the prerequisites for the application does not necessarily mean that you can use it instantly. Any item must be made using the productive capacity of your civ, and social applications like Public Education can only be implemented if your population agrees to it, based on the social model.

Tech Loss and Application Percentages

When you discover an application it is at 100% and you can use it normally. If you let the tech levels slide, the percentage of the application falls steadily so your ability to use the thing declines until it hits zero at which time you cannot use it at all. If the tech levels then rise again, the percentage goes back to 100%. As you research the prerequisites and helper techs that allowed you to get the thing in the first place, the application percentage grows, representing your increased knowledge about the thing. The application percentage for items or improvements can also grow as you manufacture that thing. This represents the greater knowledge of the thing that comes from practical experience.

Consider the application called Crossbow that needs Mechanical Engineering 30%. When Crossbows are invented, they are at 100%. If your Mechanical Engineering level then drops below 30%, the Crossbow level falls. At this point, you can still use any existing crossbows but cannot make any new ones. However, you have lost most of the knowledge of how to repair and maintain them, so the effectiveness of your crossbows decreases. The crossbow level drops steadily as long as the Mechanical Engineering tech is below 30%. If the crossbow level drops to 0%, all crossbows are now completely unworkable. All existing crossbows vanish and the knowledge is lost entirely. You must rediscover the knowledge to make any new crossbows.
But if you invest more into your tech and the Mechanical Engineering tech goes back up to 30%, the crossbow tech goes back to 100%. All existing crossbows are repaired and you can make new ones. If the Mechanical Engineering tech increases further, the application percentage also increases and is now above 100%. Your crossbows are more and more effective, and your army that is using them is more powerful. Note that the application tech level is linear, not logarithmic like the basic techs. There is an upper limit to the application techs; you cannot make crossbowmen that are more powerful than riflemen.

This should be reasonable and workable, as long as the player cannot directly influence these percentages. If the player has to micromanage hundreds of application percentages like these, the game will get so tedious it will be unplayable. The percentages are only influenced by the basic tech levels and the amount the thing is produced. They remain mostly invisible to the player.

Cultural Uniqueness

Another innovation in the tech model is the idea of a “Template Tech.” This is actually an application that changes its name, description, and icon based on the civ’s culture. “Culture” in this context more closely means, “Artistic and Religious preference.” It is chosen at the beginning of the game by the player and does not change. It has nothing to do with culture as defined by the social model. For example, the template tech “House of Worship” would be a cathedral for European cultures, a mosque for Arab cultures, a pagoda for Oriental cultures, and a temple for Native American cultures. The house of worship does exactly the same thing for all people and has exactly the same prerequisites, but it looks different so we don’t have a situation like the one in Civ 2 where the Japanese or Zulu have to build a cathedral to keep people happy.
The player never sees the generic name. It is simply a coding description. They would simply see a message like, “We can now build cathedrals” or “We can now build mosques.”

In the basic game, we should keep all things that come from template techs identical. That way, no race of people will have any kind of advantage. But we should give scenario designers the option of changing the things that come from template techs. For example, someone who made a 20th century scenario might want a template tech called, “World War 2 fighter.” If you played Americans this would give you a P-51, if you played Japanese this would give you a Zero, etc. As any military history buff knows, these planes were not identical. The scenario designer might want to give them slightly different statistics to reflect history. The ability to make these template techs lead to different things based on the civ would be a powerful design tool.

Basic Technologies: The Tech Tree

Agriculture
Determines the efficiency of your civ’s food production.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Chemistry, Ecology, Geology, Mathematics
0%-69% Biology
70-X% Biology (70%)

Air Transportation
Allows you to construct airplanes and blimps.
Prerequisites: 0%-119% Physics-Mechanics (50%), Mechanical Engineering (50%)
120%-X% Electromagnetics (115%)

Architecture
Determines the quality and maximum size of your civ’s buildings
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics(5%), Civil Engineering

Art
Aids the progress of all social techs.
Prerequisites: None

Astronomy
Your civ’s knowledge of the heavens.
Prerequisites: 0%-9% Mathematics
10%-X% Mathematics (5%)
30%-X% Optics (20%)
70%-X% Computers (60%)

Atomic Applications
This tech determines your civ’s ability to harness atomic forces. I think that we could do without this one and only use Electromagnetics.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Electromagnetics (70%)

Biology
Your civ’s knowledge of the structure of organisms.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics, Chemistry
40%-X% Optics (30%)
70%-X% Computers (60%)

Ceramics
This is your civ’s ability to make ceramic items, mostly pottery. We might not need this one.
Prerequisites: None

Chemistry
Knowledge of the use and manipulation of chemical processes.
Prerequisites: 0%-29% Mathematics
30%-X% Mathematics (10%)

Civil Engineering
Your civ’s knowledge of the building and use of roads, sewers, power grids, water supply, etc.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics (5%), Architecture

Communications
This represents the systems used to convey information. A higher level has the effect of making your civ more culturally homogenous.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Government, Land Transportation, Water Transportation
40%-79% Electronics (30%)
80%-X% Computers (85%)

Computers
Hardware and software used to compute information. I originally wanted to have this include things like abacus and slide rule and not need electronics until 20%, but LGJ changed it to leave those out.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Electronics (40%)
125%-X% Optics (110%)

Cybernetics
I don’t think this one is necessary. There will be few cyborg applications, and they can all be assigned prerequisites directly from other basic technologies.
Prerequisite: 0%-X% Biology (85%), Robotics (90%)

Diplomacy
Your ability to manipulate your people and deal with other governments.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Communication, Government

Domestication
Increases farm production and the quality of your mounted units.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Biology

Ecology
Your civ’s knowledge about environmental systems and animal behavior.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Biology (20%), Geology (25%), Mathematics

Economics
Your civ’s knowledge of financial and economic systems. Allows you to tax more effectively. I would suggest adding Psychology as a helper tech.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics (20%)

Electromagnetics
The branch of Physics that studies small particles and magnetic fields.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics (60%), Physics-Mechanics (60%)

Electronics
Your civ’s ability to use electricity and electrical devices.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Electromagnetics (60%), Metallurgy (60%)

Gaming
Represents the level and types of games/sports the civ has. Has the effect of making your population healthier and more intelligent.
Prerequisites: None

Geology
Your knowledge of the physical nature of the planet.
Prerequisites: 0%-24% Mathematics (1%)
25%-X% Physics-Mechanics (10%)

Government
Your civ’s knowledge of the art of managing the country. High levels of this tech result in more efficient administration and happier people.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Communication, Psychology

Industrial Engineering
Any activity that increases the efficiency of the manufacturing and distribution processes. Makes production more efficient, especially when mass quantities are ordered. Gives more people access to goods that are produced.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Economics
30%-X% Mechanical Engineering (45%), Economics

Land Transportation
Makes movement of goods and units more efficient.
Prerequisites: 20-119% Mechanical Engineering (10%)
120%-X% Electromagnetics (115%)

Literature
Aids the progress of all social techs. Makes your people more literate, as they have more incentive to read.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Communication (15%)

Mapping and Navigation
LGJ thinks we don’t need this one. It increases the effectiveness of your military tactics and makes it less likely for units to become lost.
Prerequisites: 0%-X%, Mathematics, Electromagnetics, Computers

Masonry and Cement
This tech covers your ability to use brick, stone, and cement. It allows you to pave roads better and make stone or brick buildings better.
Prerequisites: 20%-X% Chemistry (35%), Ceramics (25%)

Mathematics
Aids the progress of all non-social technologies (Acts as an important helper tech for everything)
Prerequisites: None

Mechanical Engineering
Your civ’s ability to make machines and engines. LGJ thinks that this can be combined with Physics-Mechanics to form one tech. I disagree, and contend that this is an entirely different field of study.
Prerequisites: 0%-30% Woodworking (10%)
30%-80%Metallurgy(20%)
80%-X% Synthetics(10%)

Medicine
Your ability to provide medical care to the populace. A higher level automatically makes people healthier and increases life expectancy and population growth.
Prerequisites: 10-X% Biology (10%), Psychology

Metallurgy
Your ability to refine and use metals of all types.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Chemistry, Mathematics

Meteorology
Your knowledge of weather. Allows you to predict some natural disasters.
Prerequisites: 0%-24% Mathematics (30%), Geology
25%-69% Electronics (40%), Geology
70%-X% Computers (70%), Space Transportation (50%), Geology

Music
Aids the progress of social techs. It might be unnecessary, as we already have an Art tech.
Prerequisites: None

Optics
Your ability to make glass and use it.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Chemistry (35%), Mathematics

Philosophy
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Religion, Psychology

Physics-Mechanics
Your civ’s knowledge of gravity, motion, forces, and energy.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics (20%)

Psychology
Your knowledge of the human mind.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Ecology

Religion
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Philosophy

Resource Gathering
Your ability to hunt, fish, mine, and find any natural resource. Increases the effectiveness of any of these activities.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics, Ecology, Geology

Robotics
I don’t think we need this one. Any Robot application can be directly traced back to the prerequisites listed here.
Prerequisite: 0-74% Electronics (30%), Mechanics (60%)
75-X% Computers (70%), Mechanics (60%)

Space Transportation
Your ability to send people and satellites into space.
Prerequisites: 0%-39% Electronics (50%), Air Transportation
40%-X% Computers (35%)
120%-X% Electromagnetics (115%)

Synthetics
Your civ’s ability to make artificial materials. This could possibly be combined with Ceramics.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Chemistry (65%)

Textiles
Your ability to make and use fabric and leather.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics

Theater
Makes people happier. We might be able to expand this to include television and movies.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Literature (10%)

Water Transportation
Affects your ability to make boats and move goods by water.
Prerequisites: 0%-49% Woodworking (1%)
50%-120% Metallurgy (40%)
120%-X% Electromagnetics (115%)

Woodworking
Your ability to use wood and make paper.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Mathematics

Military Techs

There is some debate about how many of these should be included and how they should operate. This information is tentative.

Logistics
Increases your ability to supply troops and keep them in the field. Makes military operations more efficient and reduces attrition.
0%-X% Industrial Engineering

Combat Engineering
Determines your ability to make field fortifications and besiege enemies
0%-X% Mechanical Engineering

Tactics
All tactics techs would have the same helper techs:
0%-X% Gaming, Mapping and Navigation

The tactics techs are:
Infantry Tactics (All foot soldier operations)
Mobile Tactics (Cavalry, Armor)
Air Tactics (Blimps, Planes, Helicopters)
Sea Tactics (All ships and boats)
Space Tactics (Satellites)
Combined Arms (Determines the ability of different branches of the military to work together)

These tactics techs might give a small bonus to armies of that type to represent the abilities of your unit commanders.

Additionally, the tactics you order could be applications with these tactics techs as prerequisites, such as:
Entrenchment: Infantry Tactics 30%
Encirclement: Infantry Tactics 20%, Mobile Tactics 30%, Combined Arms 15%

It is also possible that army types would have tactics techs as prerequisites:
Legion: Infantry Tactics 35%, Metallurgy 30%

I think that is everything. Let me know what you think.

> I don't think it needs to be because today they are still refered to as
> masons and the term masonry is still used.
> ---
> I dodn't know that paving highways was known as masonry. Remember that I
> meant the tech to be used for building AND paving roads.
> ---
Well u also would have to add blacktop and the rubber blacktop.

> Those would be application techs and could easily fit into what we have w/o
> making another basic tech.
> ---
> Can you think of good prerequisites for mapmaking or navigation? I can't.
> It is a different discipline than anything else, and it affects everything
> from ship navigation to troop movement and tactics to the ability to use
> land well. I will post it as an idea and let people know about your
> reservations. Then we can use their input to decide what to do.
> To be fair, I will also post your Robotics and Cybernetics ideas to let
> people decide on those as well.
> ---
I had a few and even sent an example for navigation to you.

> I thought u put it on there already in the upper part and I added it as a
> helper, but not essential for lower levels because for most of "western"
> history it wasn't seen that way.
> ---
> I did put it in there, but when you sent me the tech list you left it out.
> And I think that it would help for all levels. Western cultures simply
> didn't have a high level of psychology, so it couldn't help them.
> Meanwhile, eastern cultures had a higher psychology level so they knew more
> about this and it helped them.
> ---
Still It shouldn't be ness, ie hava a minimum percemtage for the lower levels.

> OK, I just think we should use my "randomness" modifier because otherwise we
> loose the ability for people to have non esential helpers for application
> techs which would increase the likelyhood of them learning it sooner, as
> well as the way I'd like to set up the "loss" of tech we discussed earlier.
> ---
> I fully agree with the tech loss system, and I made a differential equation
> that includes it. As for randomness, I think I have a compromise. Rather
> than simply being a computer generated random number that decides if you get
> the tech, there is an "inventor window" starting about 5% before the tech
> prerequisites. During that window, the computer checks social conditions to
> see if you have a society that encouraged invention. If you do, there is a
> large chance that the thing gets invented ahead of time. But if you have a
> repressive society, the thing will probably not get invented until you hit
> the prerequisite.
-----
What I mean is that the window won't appear until u hit the prereq, then it has a chance of learning prob based on social conditions as well as any helper application techs and the level of any applicable basic techs. The reason why it isn't invented until the prereq is aquired is because it will work much better for the loss of technology when it goes down below the min prereq. The way you seem to have it is that it could be learned before the prereq and if it goes below the prereq after it reaches the min prereq it would slowly become "lost" until it had to be relearned again. From what u posted earlier is sounds as if the chance of inventing and lossing the tech are on the same percentage scale, ie below the min prereq which doesn't make sence for gameplay.

Thanks for getting it out! I'm still trying to get my mind around the system in general, but before I conk out completely there's one thing I don't quite understand. You say:

Agriculture
Determines the efficiency of your civ’s food production.
Prerequisites: 0%-X% Chemistry, Ecology, Geology, Mathematics
0%-69% Biology
70-X% Biology (70%)

it's clear to me the effect that biology at 70% has in your model. I have to say I don't like you're having brought back all the "hard" prerequisites, but I'll give you crap about that tomorrow . What is the effect of all the others that are just listed. So, for instance, if I am at the following levels:
Agriculture 47%
Chemistry 45%
Ecology 54%
Geology 43%
Mathematics 50% (i have to say i don't get what the heck this has to do with farming)

how do these different levels affect my ability to improve my agriculture 47%?

Cya,

I should note that all helper techs are not equal. Some give a greater bonus than others. Also, the RP's required to raise a certain tech might not be the same as the RP's required to raise another tech by the same amount. Each tech will probably have different values input into the constants of the differential equation I listed.

LGJ:

Blacktop would just be a higher level of Cement, so it fits into that tech.

I don't think we can treat mapping and navigation as an application. It affects many things that a civ does, and the ability to navigate has historically risen like a basic tech does.

Psychology is not necessary for medicine. It just helps.

I contend that Robotics and Cybernetics are simply unnecessary for any time period. Any application of these two can easily be traced directly back to the basic skills of Mechanical Engineering, Computers, and Medicine.

You are right about the invent/lose problem. It can be fixed by not causing application loss until the tech drops below the inventor window. It actually makes sense to give the 5% margin of error, because once you figure out something you can still copy it pretty well even if you lost the knowledge that let you discover it.

Now that I've had a chance to read over the proposal and think about it a bit, I hopefully have something intelligent to say! My apologies on my question last night. The basic answer was there in the text, I had just missed it in my first quick reading of it.

First, I want to say that is a good and thought-provoking job. Although I don't agree with every position taken, the model certainlydoes a good job addressing many of the major issues the Clash Tech model faces. I'm going to try to focus on things that I think are really big in this post. There are a lot of little things I have comments upon, but those will have to come later. As for the things that the two of you disagree upon, and some modifications to what you have that I would propose, I think the most efficient thing would be to have an online meeting with the three of us together. There are a lot of things I think everyone agrees upon, and we don't need to discuss those much further. But for the contentious issues, we need to make decisions and move forward. I guess if we can't all agree, two votes out of the three would take any particular issue. I also have a lot of suggestions of mine that I've made before that didn't get into the model. I would like to bring those up for a vote one more time also. I'm available pretty much through 9 PM EST tonight if you guys are amenable to trying it today. After today, I will be tied up pretty much until next weekend.

Big issues (at least ones I think qualify)

Hard Prerequisites

I'm really dismayed to see the "hard" prerequisites come back. I thought LGJ and I had agreed that soft prerequisites were the way to go. I think the hard ones very rarely makes sense, and when they do, a soft prerequisites system can handle them just as well by making their "importance" very large. I'll use an example from your proposal...

For example, you need 70% in your Biology tech before you can advance beyond 70% in agriculture. This is because 70% Biology represents Genetic Engineering, and agriculture beyond 70% needs genetically engineered crop plants.

You are saying here that agriculture cannot progress At All beyond 70% without genetic engineering??? So in your opinion no amount of improved fertilization techniques, better farm machinery, better farm management methods, computerization, weather prediction, or other things could at all move that capability of the agricultural sector beyond 70%. IMO your arbitrary restriction has very little to do with how such things work in the real world. I believe that most "hard" prerequisites are equally untenable. Perhaps your notion was that Genetic Engineering should be very important in pushing agriculture beyond the 70% level. In that I agree with you. But that's not what your model does!

The other problem with hard prerequisites is that they put back in the type of micromanagement that you are trying to avoid in construction of your model. The player always needs to be attentive of whether this exact level has been reached... to make sure that whatever application they want to achieve can be gotten to. Can you see what I'm saying? If you just put the hard prerequisites in for the writeup, and planned on a different approach, then I retract all this...

Tech Diffusion and Trading

Can you give me an example of how you see the two of these working in your model? I'll save my comments until after the example.

R. P. creation

Very little was set about research point creation... do you have a canned discussion on that available? A lot of this has not been discussed in detail, and the time has come to put together at least a simple model of how this works.

Thanks for all the great work!

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 01-30-2000 11:24 AM I'm really dismayed to see the "hard" prerequisites come back. I thought LGJ and I had agreed that soft prerequisites were the way to go. I think the hard ones very rarely makes sense, and when they do, a soft prerequisites system can handle them just as well by making their "importance" very large. I'll use an example from your proposal... For example, you need 70% in your Biology tech before you can advance beyond 70% in agriculture. This is because 70% Biology represents Genetic Engineering, and agriculture beyond 70% needs genetically engineered crop plants. You are saying here that agriculture cannot progress At All beyond 70% without genetic engineering??? So in your opinion no amount of improved fertilization techniques, better farm machinery, better farm management methods, computerization, weather prediction, or other things could at all move that capability of the agricultural sector beyond 70%. IMO your arbitrary restriction has very little to do with how such things work in the real world. I believe that most "hard" prerequisites are equally untenable. Perhaps your notion was that Genetic Engineering should be very important in pushing agriculture beyond the 70% level. In that I agree with you. But that's not what your model does!

Ok Mark first off to your problem with the 70% as a final barrier without biology 70%, Rich forgot to say that there would be a phased in transition in his model from say 60-80%. The percentages can be playtested, but the facts reamain that for agricutlture atleast u need genetic engineering to get beyond certain percentage (U can read several previous postings I refered to the US vs France (which BTW doesn't use genetic engineering) and the agricultural levels.

I do however see your point about imrpoved fertilization, etc. That's what I was trying to address in the e-mail I posted.

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 01-30-2000 11:24 AM The other problem with hard prerequisites is that they put back in the type of micromanagement that you are trying to avoid in construction of your model. The player always needs to be attentive of whether this exact level has been reached... to make sure that whatever application they want to achieve can be gotten to. Can you see what I'm saying? If you just put the hard prerequisites in for the writeup, and planned on a different approach, then I retract all this...

Well there is that. Not everything will have only "hard prereqs". Also are u refering to level (% wise) or the application techs that that level refers to? If its the latter I can understand, however if its the former, there has to be a base minimum. Also just because u go below that minimum (in my way of thinking from how I've posted how tech loss/gain should be handled) doesn't mean u can't produce/use whatever. It does mean it won't be as good and will slowly decay till u can't produce and only maintain and evertually till u can't even maintain (assuming the basic tech continues to degrade). The way I would like it set would be to have those as the minimum prereq and the appropriate application tech which would be somewhat randomly (but mostly on technological/social conditions) be used as the soft prereq for most cases (a few like genetic engineering would still require genetics ).

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 01-30-2000 11:24 AM Tech Diffusion and Trading Can you give me an example of how you see the two of these working in your model? I'll save my comments until after the example.

Truth told, this hasn't been discussed much because we wanted to get the core system of how techs are gain via researching done first. That isn't to say that I (can't vouch for Rich) haven't thought about it.

First off, I'm not for trading of actual "application techs" unless the civilization already exceeds the min prereq (not just borderline, but exceeding them). This of course wouldn't work the way Rich has the model currently but would work in version. Anywayz that could only done with trade. Any other way (espionage, diffusion) would simply increase basic techs.

Diffusion should very very very much socialy affected. Not to say that new ideas can't come to societies that don't like those type of trends, but its very hard. The main way things should diffuse are for the most part from merchants, immigration (more social than tech), wars (monkey see monkey do, if its much better), tourism, and via major networks like the internet.

I think espionage should be pretty well understood by most. Just that the better ur network of spies, the more u get (assuming ur not caught beforehand).

Also if ur relying mainly on diffusion, etc. for gaining techs rathing than researching then u'll never get higher than say 15% below the max highest tech level for that apporpriate basic tech from the civ with the highest level ur getting it from. Also if its via diffusion and that civ is far away (communication wise) then it will be even greater.

Finally social advances will be much harder to diffuse, esp if they are completly the opposite of ur civs current values.

quote: Originally posted by Mark_Everson on 01-30-2000 11:24 AM R. P. creation Very little was set about research point creation... do you have a canned discussion on that available? A lot of this has not been discussed in detail, and the time has come to put together at least a simple model of how this works.

If so, How do we handle the specific applications? Or are they all just amalgamated into percentages? For example I would like to see as many specific application techs as we can fit that will make sence if only for the educational and flavour values.

My list of application techs would include such things as (using fire arms for example)-
Fire stick - the most basic arrow firer, worse than a bow.
Arquebus matchlock - fires stones or wrought balls
Matchlock musket - increased firepower and mobility
Wheellock musket - increased firepower and mobility
Flintlock musket - not as good as wheel lock but cheaper
Rifling - improved range
Cast projectile - improved firepower and armour penetration
Wadding - improved firepower
Percussion musket - improved firepower and decreased enviromental effects
Breech seperation loading - improved defence decreased firepower
Cartridge concept - allows following techs and gives an increase in firepower
Breech lock loading -
Bolt lock - improved firepower
Magazine loading - improved firepower
High velocity powders - improved firepower / range
Smokeless powders - improves defence and continued fire accuracy
semi auto loading - M1 Garand
full auto reduced power - assault rifles

As you can see, a mass of potential applications and each requires specific advances in materials science or other areas. These techs developed over a 700 year period and the last of the incremental improvements is a major advance over the first. My point is that a number of these have considerable effects and a soldier would desire each more advanced one in preference to the previous. It is also not guaranteed that the basic knowledge gives the applications. The basic knowledge is built up slowly through the use of the scientific method (with some brilliance). The applications require the random brilliant spark. The example of this is gunpowder, China had it for 400 years and developed simple rockets. The europeans had it for a hundred and had arquebuses and were starting to use it in mining.

I see the actual application techs as being capable of being traded or spied out etc, while the basic techs and theoretical breakthroughs can't. Or at least not as easily as they require a transfer of knowledge and wisdom. You could even sell muskets to the natives while they themselves can not make them.

I also like the cultural awareness model but I see a few needs that may not be met by that part of the system. It does meet the needs of city improvements etc but cultural units is taking it a little far. Units or more specifically combat machines are some of the most rapidly developing technologies seen. As an example I give the short range low firepower interceptors of 1940 (spitfire etc.) vs higher firepower longer range fighters of 1942(zero) vs the long range, high firepower, high strike power, high defence fighter in 44 (P51, F4U) vs the very fast, very powerful jets in 45 (me262).

Hard Prerequisites...
If there is a fairly broad transition, like the type you cite, then I don't see it being as big a problem. I don't agree with your "fact" that agriculture can never get beyond 70% without genetic engineering. There are numerous differences between French and American agricultural practices, the most important of which IMO are institutional and cultural, Not Technological. I restate that without genetic engineering it would be Significantly Harder to get above 70%, but arbitrarily putting a wall there is IMO not reasonable. I can easily see a future society, that outlawed genetic engineering, have agricultural productivity that is much greater than our own through the use of other technologies that I outlined in my post above. Your current model fails utterly to model such a society and its technological progress. I agree there are some cases where there are essentially hard prerequisites. But in those cases a strong turn on of the importance over a narrow range of levels, as I think you mention is the actual plan, should work fine.

Micromanagement with respect to hard prerequisites...
I was primarily referring to the trip points in basic techs being so sharp, and relying on arbitrary sharp distinctions in other basic techs. Having the application techs be done automatically based on what is happening in the basic techs is the major model change, and I'm not griping about it at the moment. I have some reservations about it, but if we can work out everything else satisfactorily, it does have the advantages Richard is talking about.

IMO the methods for application technology social acceptance, and degradation based on loss of basic technology aren't completely there yet. I think it needs to include diffusion affects, and also have an effectiveness modifier crediting technologies that are currently in active use. I think in many cases, rather than the technology becomingly ineffective, it will simply lapse back to an "artisan" level. In this case the fundamental aspects of the technology are not understood, but the steps that are needed to put things together are still known. Your people would only truly forget technologies that were not in active use.

The current model doesn't give any credit for whether you actually use this thing actively in your civilization, or not. In my mind is clearly true that the level of refinement of the technology past a certain point relies on how many people are using it and under what circumstances. Although the level of basic technologies is important, it is only through continued use (and presumably refinement) that an application should reach its higher levels of effectiveness. So I think the improvement or lack thereof of an application should also take into account its level of use. For instance, making a lot of rifles and outfitting your troops with them would give you some credit, training with those rifles more, and actually using them in the field Much more.

Tech Diffusion and Trading...
I'm basically with you on this one. I think your point about relying on diffusion meaning you are always behind is basically correct. I think the magnitudes may be much less than what you're talking about though. Because of the very slow rate of change of technology and ancient civilizations, I think a more dynamic and innovative ancient society could pretty successfully sponge off others and be only a little behind. However, this is at the level of things that need to be checked out in play testing rather than determined now.

Krenske:

IMO most of your innovations are actually at the level of small steps in a basic technology called Firearms or something. I'm in favor of having some basic weapons technologies rather than a huge number of applications floating around. At your level of detail it would end up with us having thousands of applications, and I don't think anyone would learn much of anything from it...

All:

But (and this is just me, again, only my preference), I can't stand the 'soft' prerequisite idea. It's my opinion that tech advance and tech 'skill' should be seperate. Techs come in leaps and bounds, as people suddenly see new combinations of old ideas (the 'eureka' effect). Skill grows over time. And high skill does not always equate to fast tech growth. The best ironsmiths in the world do not necessarily have the inside track to discovering steel.

I feel tech in history advances much in the way the show 'Connections' by James Burke shows it -- two old ideas combine to make a new idea. I understand you feel this creates a confusing tech tree, but a tech tree is (to me) no where near as confusing as first memorizing what each tech % means, and then trying to memorize the levels.

I think what ya'll are rolling in as basic tech level (like the discussion about agriculture level) is really 'skill/experience'. These things, to me, are totally seperate.

And, I think that is a system that will be played best by maximizing a bunch of numbers -- not my favorite type of game at all. Consider what will be required under this system. In order to decide where to put 'tech' points, you would have to look up all available tech % trees/ladders/whatever, and then decide which combinations would be required for all possible new breakthrus.

About the skill issue your right and wrong at the same time. The greatest ironsmiths in the world might not know about steel production, but then again, the prob will because alloys have been in use since nearly after the discovery of copper. As far as the agriculture is concerned i have to say u are dead wrong almost. Sure there is a lot of experience involved, but that's not why the US is ahead. It is directly based on the fact that all crops and animals are genetically engineering to some extent or another in the US while elsewhere they aren't or aren't enough to make any differance. Look at politics and u'll see. There are tons of people claiming they won't eat genetically engineered food because they believe there is something bad about it. Scientifically that's not true, so long as u don't make anything bad genetically speaking.

Also most times techs don't come in leaps and bounds. They do sometimes but usually not. The "Eureka" effect is the exception rather than the norm.

As far as soft prereqs go, historically not having them would lead to less realism and we'd end up with a civ2 type infrastrcutre where consciption and refrigeration are linked. Its almost inevitable without having a huge number of techs.

Mark

Micromanagement with respect to hard prerequisites...

The current model doesn't give any credit for whether you actually use this thing actively in your civilization, or not.
---

---
Richard Bruns:

Tech Loss and Application Percentages

When you discover an application it is at 100% and you can use it normally. If you let the tech levels slide, the percentage of the application falls steadily . . . The application percentage for items or improvements can also grow as you manufacture that thing. This represents the greater knowledge of the thing that comes from practical experience.
---
I understand how you didn't see or notice that. The post was huge and I didn't elaborate on it. But I did mention that your application percentage grows as you make something. If you make it enough, you can keep the application percentage constant even if tech levels fell.

Mark: I did not choose to add hard prerequisites with the knowledge that you didn't want them. They were everywhere in the tech tree LGJ gave me, so I assumed they were standard. My tech tree uses many of the hard prerequisites he had; I have them as percentages instead of individual techs like he had. You do have a point about them being somewhat constraining.

If we decide against mandatory prerequisites, we can easily turn them into "hard soft prerequisites." It would be possible, but difficult, to advance without them. So if a helper tech at a certain percentage gives a 30% bonus to percentages gained per RP, a "hard soft prerequisite" at that same percentage would give a 200% bonus, which would basically mean that researching without it would take three times the effort. That seems like it could work, and it would address your valid concerns about micromanagement and history.

As I envision tech diffusion and trading, you can get any application from anyone. But if you don't have high enough tech levels, the techs decay like they would if you had found it yourself but lost the tech. So you could buy guns from more advanced cultures, but the application tech would decrease over time. It might be possible to use something so much that the application tech stays constant, but this would be hard.

If you were in the 'inventor window' when you acquired the tech, you would get it like it was invented by someone in your civ. And if you had high enough tech levels, you would have the thing anyway because I always give things to civs when they get the prerequisites. How does that sound?

F_Smith: What you propose would result in a tech tree similar to that of Civ 2. I explained in the first part of the model why this type of tree would not work. And as for players memorizing every percentage, we can't stop that. But in my model they do not have to memorize things. They simply know that if they keep researching Biology and Agriculture they will keep getting better farms. But with a normal tech tree they would have to consult a massive chart to see what tech they should research so they could eventually get Three Field Crop Rotation. They might find that they must research something like Metallurgy before they can rotate crops. (Matallurgy, Heavy Plow, Advanced Farming, Three Field Crop Rotation) This kind of thing seems very nonintuitive and cumbersome to me. Remember that we will have hunderds of techs while Civ 2 only had dozens. In my tree, all things come intuitively from basic skills; you don't have to navigate a web of techs.

---
LGJ:
First off, I'm not for trading of actual "application techs" unless the civilization already exceeds the min prereq (not just borderline, but exceeding them).
---
If you can exceed the prerequisites without getting the thing, then the prerequisites are totally meaningless. You would force the player to research the thing seperately or not let them get something until some random time after the prerequisites. Either way would make the game frustrating.

I think that tech diffusion would work best the way I described above. It allows you to steal or buy advanced applications from others, but you suffer a gradual penalty if your tech isn't advanced enough to use it properly.

Krenske:
I could assign prerequisite percentages for everything in your list, but I don't think it is necessary. That level of detail is, in my opinion, not worth the time or effort. One application can cover many of the many techs you listes. Remember that applications are not static. So the Musket application I listed would cover Fire stick, Arquebus matchlock, Matchlock musket, Wheellock musket, and Flintlock musket. This kind of progression is represented by the application percentage rising above 100%. It might help to read the crossbow example closely and replace "crossbow" with "musket."

Culture Tech Acceptance:

Restatement of my "micromanagement with respect to hard prerequisites" section above...
1. It is in having enabling basic technologies that require precise percentages that I think the micromanagement in this model would be worse.
2. Whether an application technology is invented or not must IMO involve not only the level of basic techs but also:
a) diffusion effects (can we See someone else using it, if so how easy it is it to copy?),
b) social effects (if the merchants are on top in our society, then any transportation technology will probably be accepted almost immediately, if it is landed aristocracy, then transportation technology will probably be looked on much less favorably)
3. Whether an application technology flourishes, stagnates, or declines should involve:
a) social effects as above (which you already have in mind, just stating it to be complete)
b) active use of the technology (building something based on it)
4. If the basic technology required for a particular application technology declines, the artifacts built with that technology Will Not Necessarily Get Worse. It shouldn't get worse if the society is actively using and constantly building that item. People will no longer understand the "science" behind what they are doing, but they can usually keep making the same thing, and even improving on it by trial and error IMO. The forgetting part happens when the scale of the thing built is no longer practical (who needs an aqueduct for a city that is now down to 10,000 people). When the thing is no longer actively being built then the knowledge should be forgotten rather quickly.

No. 4 is why I think that we need something that keeps track of how often used a particular technology is. In an innovative society, and often-used thing will improve over time even without player intervention. This is what the last paragraph, just before "Techs Diffusion and Trading" is about. This is the skill part that F_Smith is talking about, and needs to be looked at separately IMO from progress in the basic tech. that's not to say that there is no feedback going the other way. There clearly is. But if the society is very traditional, or very little capital is left in the hands of the people by the ruler, the innovative feedback into basic technologies will probably be minimal IMO.

LGJ, you'll have to tell me specifically what "solution" to the soft prereqs you are speaking of. I can see at least three things that may be what you're talking about, and don't know which one you mean...

F. Smith:

I address your comments on skill in building something particular vs. general progress above. The same thing had been bothering me.

There is technological revolution, and then there is also evolution. The model here is trying to do both. If it turns out the revolution isn't handled satisfactorily, we can always take one step back and add in a bunch of revolutionary technologies like railroad, and the atom bomb. But for now let's see if it can work with railroad embedded in land transportation. In any case, it shouldn't come down to memorizing anything. I think the interface type that most players would prefer it is one where you assign priorities to a limited number of specific applications that you really want, and tell your adviser to "go get them for me". Seems a lot simpler to me than memorizing combinations of how to get to Monarchy, trade, and gunpowder in the quickest way.

Richard:

Oops, I missed the sentence on application percentage growing with manufacture! My apologies.

Yes, what you say about "hard soft prerequisites" is what I had in mind, and I think it will work well.

One thing I don't like now that we're talking about the area is that if some genius comes along and invents something "ahead of the curve" that it is automatically at 100%. If the number of supporting technologies are not there yet, I think the things should start out with some problems. For instance inventing rifling doesn't necessarily give you a "rifle" there was a long period of rifled muskets that, although better than normal muskets, were nowhere near what we think of as rifles. Probably I could think of a better example, but I'm in a hurry .

The "huge" number of innovations in firearms listed effectively cover a 700 year period. Assuming we have dropped to 2 year economic turns by that point, these inventions / improved applications are occurring once every 20 turns. By the time of the scale dropping to 1 year turns we will still be looking at 20 turn seperations of these inventions. This happens to mirror quite nicely the general and quite expensive process of reissuing new weapons to your armies that also appears to occur once every generation or 2 from the middle ages on.

The jumps in improvement offered by these new features can be quite significant. And in some situations are guaranteed battle winners. If a matchlock force fights a flintlock force in drizzel or damp situations then it loses, as simple as that, as the matches go out. Now there was a 10 year period in europe where outcomes like this were avoided by the matchlock forces just retiring if the weather conditions were not in there favour. It doesn't really work as a basic 1-2 % improvement as the historical impact of the seperate improvements translates to big differences.
Your basic similarly loaded soldier armed with a mini ball MLR from the US Civil War is at least 5-6 times more effective than a arquebusier when considering firing at short range alone. When you consider the fact that the MLR guy is also more mobile and greatly outranges his opposition it is even more pronounced. So unless ratings of 1000% etc for musket are to be found (with the percentages rapidly jumping) we need a number of the gradual improvements listed.

My next point is that these applications of the basic tech are not really slow considered improvements out of improvemetns in theory. They are in fact someones bright idea, the "eureka" factor.

I can see where this will be unwieldy but this has to be one of the more cluttered of the techs. Most other techs are less cluttered.
IE farming.
Plow, (requiring domestication) 1000 years
Seed drill, 500 years
Seed drill plow automated, (?) 1000-2500 years
fertilizer,
Moldboard plow
takes us from the begining through to 1830 odd.

There are other agricultural improvements but not directly related to the practice of farming crops. There is selective breeding etc but that has to do with biology and grazing. Within most techs there are only 5-6 of these applications and they are spread over a lot of time. Even in my firearms examples a number have nothing to do with the basic firearms tech and are actually based on chemistry or metal working techs (Cast bullets, smokeless powder, rifling).

Now that is the more scientific end of my reasoning. My more emotional point of view is that it will feel better for the player. They will receive a nice educational message and be given the choice of implementing the new invention etc automatically. They will have a greater sense of achievment than simply getting musket 212% over the top of Musket 211%.

These applications for the most part will not all need to be invented by the player as a large number will be traded, or just naturally spread across borders. (eg. Jim see's an enemy soldier fire at him with some new fangled gun that does not smoke all the time, Jim sneaks over there in the night and knocks off one of said guns. Ta da, the tech has spread. Actually Jim would probably just walk to the nearest enemy gun smith and buy a new gun. Merchants did not generally care about state secrets, and still don't)

A civ that has no contact at all with any other will not have the benefit of idea cross polination. They may have the basic tech but the applications themselves have not yet been discovered. (eg. Japan has the metallurgy skill, has gun powder but has no guns. It has remained seperate for ages and then 3-10 portugese sailors give a few arquebuses over to them. Within a 20 years there are so many firearms in japan that it is threatening the entire social structure.)

I do not necessarily see there being a lot of prerequisites for each application. Many of these improvements have no prerequisite besides the base tech.

EG. Firearm, starts with firestick but all the following could immeadiately be available for discovery and application.
Matchlock
Flintlock
Breech Seperation loading (closely related to revolvers)
Bolt loading
Wheellock
Musket (effectively the addition of the stock)

All we need to do is skew the chance of discovery to get a roughly historical succession. Even historically things could be said to be out of whack. The wheellock was discovered before flintlock even though it is more complex. Breech seperation loading was discovered very early on then forgotten about for 300 years due to cost considerations.

Each of the techs would just need a base percentage of discovery. Some of the later developments will use these though as prerequisites.

(by the way the reason the wheel lock lost out to flint lock is cost. The flintlock is cheaper and the wheel lock is only marginally better. The wheellock was mainly used by cav in the matchlock period as the horses didn't like the naked matches touching them. In the game it would be difficult to see the wheel lock being used unless it is invented first.)

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 01-31-2000 07:45 PM If you can exceed the prerequisites without getting the thing, then the prerequisites are totally meaningless. You would force the player to research the thing seperately or not let them get something until some random time after the prerequisites. Either way would make the game frustrating.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 01-31-2000 07:45 PM I think that tech diffusion would work best the way I described above. It allows you to steal or buy advanced applications from others, but you suffer a gradual penalty if your tech isn't advanced enough to use it properly.

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 1. It is in having enabling basic technologies that require precise percentages that I think the micromanagement in this model would be worse.

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 2. Whether an application technology is invented or not must IMO involve not only the level of basic techs but also: a) diffusion effects (can we See someone else using it, if so how easy it is it to copy?), b) social effects (if the merchants are on top in our society, then any transportation technology will probably be accepted almost immediately, if it is landed aristocracy, then transportation technology will probably be looked on much less favorably)

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 3. Whether an application technology flourishes, stagnates, or declines should involve: a) social effects as above (which you already have in mind, just stating it to be complete) b) active use of the technology (building something based on it)

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 4. If the basic technology required for a particular application technology declines, the artifacts built with that technology Will Not Necessarily Get Worse. It shouldn't get worse if the society is actively using and constantly building that item. People will no longer understand the "science" behind what they are doing, but they can usually keep making the same thing, and even improving on it by trial and error IMO. The forgetting part happens when the scale of the thing built is no longer practical (who needs an aqueduct for a city that is now down to 10,000 people). When the thing is no longer actively being built then the knowledge should be forgotten rather quickly.

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 No. 4 is why I think that we need something that keeps track of how often used a particular technology is. In an innovative society, and often-used thing will improve over time even without player intervention. This is what the last paragraph, just before "Techs Diffusion and Trading" is about. This is the skill part that F_Smith is talking about, and needs to be looked at separately IMO from progress in the basic tech. that's not to say that there is no feedback going the other way. There clearly is. But if the society is very traditional, or very little capital is left in the hands of the people by the ruler, the innovative feedback into basic technologies will probably be minimal IMO.

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 LGJ, you'll have to tell me specifically what "solution" to the soft prereqs you are speaking of. I can see at least three things that may be what you're talking about, and don't know which one you mean...

As for myself I'm for a combination of what Rich just propose along with my use of the actual application techs to help speed things along.

quote: Originally posted by Mark Everson on 01-31-2000 There is technological revolution, and then there is also evolution. The model here is trying to do both. If it turns out the revolution isn't handled satisfactorily, we can always take one step back and add in a bunch of revolutionary technologies like railroad, and the atom bomb. But for now let's see if it can work with railroad embedded in land transportation. In any case, it shouldn't come down to memorizing anything. I think the interface type that most players would prefer it is one where you assign priorities to a limited number of specific applications that you really want, and tell your adviser to "go get them for me". Seems a lot simpler to me than memorizing combinations of how to get to Monarchy, trade, and gunpowder in the quickest way.

Also I really want to get resolved the main sticking point of when/how application techs are discovered. The reason I think mine would work better is there is a definate clear part where u begin to "slowly decay" in tech and a point where u can "discover" the appropraite application tech and those 2 are seperate so a person can't learn it when it should be in the level where it would slowly be decaying. Also it uses the minimum prereq system fairly instead of abusing it, since otherwise min. prereq means nothing if i can learn it before then.

Kereske:

I think the system can handle most of what you're looking for. It may be that we just need to put in several different application levels of musket before you get to rifle. My rule of thumb in the previous tech stuff that I have done is that if something is twice as good as its predecessor then it should be a technology (now called application). So in your case where you say there's a factor of 6-10 times, all we need is two or three technologies that were the most significant along that line, and allow each to improve by some amount, say by 50%-100% through use. (For example, it may be that the evolving version of the old technology is every bit as good as the new technology, but that the new one is significantly cheaper) How much a particular technology can achieve through evolution rather than revolution is something that I'm sure LGJ and Richard will rely on the main model guys to provide. So would you like to get together with Harli and flesh out your particular example a little bit, and we can see how it works in this proposed system?

Remember, you are extremely focused on the military area. One thing every 20 turns doesn't seem like much to manage. But there will be something like 50 basic technologies. Specifically handling each technological advancement in everything (and I believe they are mostly as dense the military ones) gives you something like two technologies per turn. I can see the player yawning already. Admittedly a lot of it will be handled more automatically than the military stuff. But still we're probably talking about one significant thing happening everyturner or to. And there will be a Lot more turns then in civ. by the way, your agriculture example missed whole areas of improvements in agricultural techniques such as several different levels of crop rotation schemes, new plant species like the potato that revolutionized agriculture in parts of the world, etc.

Social Acceptance:

As I stated in the original post, getting an application does not automatically mean you can use it. Getting an application means that you have the technical knowledge of how it works. If your people don't like it, you will have to abandon the idea or try to force it on them. This is possible, but you will have to deal with dissent.

Consider Stalin and Peter 'the Great.' Each of them made it their goal to modernize Russia, imposing new technologies on an unwilling people. They had to fight a lot of internal dissent, but they did it. The player should have the same ability, unless they are running a democratic form of government. Of course there will be penalties to forcing techs on people, but if you have the police and army to force people to work in a factory or use a modern device, you can do it.

Application Percentages:

What specifically in your system(s) causes a large number of innovative societies with tech diffusion among them to proceed much more rapidly than a single isolated society of the same type? Is it trading of levels of basic tech back and forth, feedback between applications and the basic techs, or what?

As I imagined it, RP's come from your society and economy, as well as trade and contact with other civilizations. So if there are advanced civs nearby, you get a lot more RP's than a similar society with no contact with other people. This is one of the reasons that RP growth is exponential. As every civ grows and advances, there is more contact and thus more knowledge.

Diffusion of specific applications should not be a problem if most civ's are about the same level. But I don't think that basic tech levels should diffuse. Basic tech levels represent a huge sum of knowledge that your civ has built up. This kind of knowledge cannot transfer easily. To get a higher level of basic tech, you have to spend RP's yourself. The extra RP's you get as a result of contact with other civs should be enough to raise your basic tech as a result of contact with others.

Prerequisites:

After reading the posts and thinking things over, I have come to the conclusion that we all have the same thing in mind regarding the prerequisites for applications:

Before Basic Tech Level A: The civ does not have the technical knowledge to make the application or use it to its full potential.

Between Basic Tech Level A and Basic Tech Level B: The civ can make and use the application properly if it has it. There is a chance based on societal conditions that the application will be invented by someone in the society.

After basic Tech Level B: The civ is infallably given the knowledge of the application, and there is the option to use it.

The disagreement resulted from the fact that I used "prerequisite" to describe Level B, and LGJ used "prerequisite" to describe level A.

So I suggest that we not use the word "prerequisite." That work is an artifact of Civ 2 and makes very little sense in our model. Therefore, I shall henceforth use the following terms:

Level A above will be referred to as the Minimum Competence Level.

Level B above will be referred to as the Guaranteed Knowledge Level.

The techs formerly known as soft prerequisites will be referred to as Helper Technologies.

The techs formerly known as hard prerequisites will be referred to as Vital Technologies.

Thanks for the quick answer. I agree with your general statements on where RPs come from, but not with the specifics. Although it may be a model that is too complicated, I prefer one where both basic techs and applications can diffuse to some extent. Here's my reasoning... say I am playing a culture like the Minoans that has a heavy focus on merchant activity. Because of my culture my basic technologies will be skewed in the direction of things that help our merchants, like commerce, communications technologies, and naval transport in this case. Let's say all the cultures around me are more interested in land military technology. I think that what I should be able to absorb from the neighbors should relate in some way to what they Actually Have Achieved beyond me, rather than simply letting me use generic RPs to further the things I am traditionally good at. Obviously this isn't completely true, but at least for a fraction of the RPs I shouldn't get a choice as to where they go. Those RPs should automatically go into things like land military technology. In general, copying the breakthroughs that my neighbors have had has been historically much easier than generating new breakthroughs of my own. What do you think?

Richard and LGJ:

One problem with creating a tech tree is that everyone has a favorite topic and field of study and wants to include as much as possible of that topic. Krenske likes and knows a lot about military technology, so he would like to see a tree with 100 military advances throughout history and maybe a dozen farming advances. LGJ likes and knows about martial arts and oriental culture, so his original tree had about a dozen cultural tcehnologies regarding these things and maybe six for other cultures combined.

This is not a result of conscious discrimination; it is a natural result of including what we know most about. I have tried to avoid this problem, and have been partially sucessful because I have a broad but not deep knowledge of almost all scientific and technological fields as well as a good understanding of history. I don't know a lot about any of them, but my knowledge is such that I treat them almost equally.

Of course, I know next to nothing about culture and arts, so my tree is woefully deficient in those fields. I didn't include many social techs for the simple reason that I don't know about them. Almost all cultural stuff I have is gleaned off the knowledge of others.

The end result is that I have a tree that satisfies almost everybody yet pleases nobody. Everyone has something they know about and like that I either left out or oversimplified. I know that I have done this. I know that many aspects of my model are imprecise and too simple. I had to do this. We are trying to put the entire cultural, scientific, and technical knowledge of the human race into a realistic game that will be fun to play. That demands sacrifices and simplification.

If we included enough detail in every field to please everyone who was really interested in that topic, we would have thousands and thousands of techs. Everyone would get sick of reading boring details of dozens of topics they didn't care about. The detail of the one topic they like would be lost in the midst of what they consider junk.

I am asking that everyone agree to losing their favorite details in exchange for a streamlined tree that will be fun for everyone. Try to see the big picture, and please correct me if I get too detailed on something. After all, I can't see my mistakes and preferences any more than you can see yours.

I like your plan to have helper techs determine the inventor window. But remember that 10% is double of half the knowledge, so the range should not extend much beyond 5%. Otherwise you have a situation where it is possible to invent something with only half the knowledge you should have to be able make that thing.

All:

I propose that only the Guaranteed Knowledge Level be listed in the documentation. That way a player knows exactly when something will definitely be available. People like to plan ahead, so they should have a concrete place to aim for.

Agree that inventor windows should always be small. They should be fairly small anyway...

On the Guaranteed Knowledge Level. I agree with your psychological arguments. But... How about we set the GKL that appears in the manual to Always be 5% (or some constant) above the average number for each helper tech that I described above. You will frequently get the tech before you hit the GKL IMO. But if you don't get it by then, you will recieve it when all the helper techs reach GKL.

I do have a slight concern with your proposal, however:
---
Mark Everson:
As we get close to 45% the "inventor window" would open, and we would get a chance to attain the technology.
---
How close do you mean? If you set the GKL at 50% for this you might have someone get lucky and get the thing at 40%, which is half the knowledge that they 'should' have before they get the thing. In this case, I would set the GKL at 48% and the Minimum Competence level at 42%. Three percent from the average seems to be a reasonable range.

+-3% should be fine. Its just a first shot at it anyway...

On the emails, sure post them if you want. It is complicated posting long things because the text box will only hold so much. I would put them in a new separate thread too, since they would really clot this one up IMO

To change the tech list just edit your initial post. Hit the little pencil and paper edit icon at the top of that post. You can also use edit to look at the codes in someone elses posts so you can know the format for quotes and such.

I suppose it would be okay to set a minimum percentage of RP allocation to an individual basic technology. That would simulate tech diffusion of a certain type, as well as the people's inventiveness that is not controlled by you. However, I don't think a maximum would be good, except of course for 100% of RP's minus the minimums. Leaders should be able to turn the majority of their resources to a single immediate goal, like the United States did in World War 2.

IMO cutting it off at 100% is not necc. good. 100% should IMO just represent a reasonably useful implementation, but one that can be improved upon. Above 100% the thing could still be improved, but would be in a regieme of diminishing returns. What you really need past 100% is the next breakthrough (application). But if you don't have it your biplane can still be refined (maybe asymptotically approaching 130 or 150%). However, it will still be just a Very good biplane, rather than a WWII plane. Anything that is down to 10% effectiveness is probably not cost effective to build regardless, since an older technology (balloon maybe) will generally be more cost effective. Anyway that's my take on it.

RPs:
The way I have been thinking about it is that RPs from diffusion and social features are Free to the player, but the player has no direct control over them. They are spent automatically. What the player can do is put Money anywhere to show the interest and power of the civ ruling elite is behind this particular type of improvement. So the player may pick Agriculture to receive a boost just by putting cash on it. Cash can buy RPs that can go anywhere.

However for Cash RPs there should be an inertial term that LGJ and I have talked about before. Running from one area to another won't give the same benefit as supporting something year after year. I'm sure we can come up with an easy mechanism to simulate this if you guys agree.

Otherwise players that don't give a damn about research will have to allocate points, or at least designate an advisor to do so. This way, if you're not interested in pushing tech forward you just let your people do it for you (which was generally true for much of history anyway).

I think your plan for application percentages is fine. One question: At what percentage does a new technology get as good and cost effectife as 100% of an old technology?

Manual Idea is okay for listing them in the middle, with a note that it isn't the middle.

One thing u'll have to figure out is not only how helper techs will affect this but also how social conditions will also.

Also how will the decay of techs work below minimum competence level and for how long will it be useful?

RichWhen u decide to repost the updated model, also post what u have on social aspects as well as fine arts.

RPs & Money: Also there should be a point at which no matter how much more money u put in, u won't get anything more in return. For the most part this could be a diminishing returns graph, but it would have to have a max out point because there is only so much that can be done in one turn even with all resources at ur disposal.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-01-2000 07:42 PM I think your plan for application percentages is fine. One question: At what percentage does a new technology get as good and cost effectife as 100% of an old technology? .

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-01-2000 07:42 PM Your RP allocation idea seems remarkably similar to the "inventor" idea I posted last year. It has people developing things automatically, with the government only supporting basic research. The irony of this is that I have come full circle and now consider my original idea to be bad for gameplay. It would be good for the player to control at least some of the natural RP pool. I would suggest that about half of the stuff is assigned automatically, with the player controlling the other half. The cash RP's are an addition to this basic RP pool.

LOL on you having come full circle! I think 50% is a reasonable place to compromise. In the coating we should just leave it as a variable, and then players could select it as a more historical setting, or higher control setting. I'd meant to have a bunch of "historical accuracy level" sliders anyway.

By the way, what's with your equation? The letter a and b are redundant. Is the b term supposed to have parentheses around it?

Another unrelated note. There is a FAQ for the bulletin board that you can find if you go to the main Apolyton Page. There may even be a link from the top of the forum, I just can't remember.

LGJ: Sounds Good. Agree on everything.

I need to carp on the list of basic techs now, but I'm not up to it tonight.

Nooo !!!
I've been misunderstood.

With my example of farming improvements I only listed direct farming improvements. Crop rotation and various irrigation techniques etc I see as belonging to other basic techs. Crop rotation belongs with environmental understanding. Irrigation techniques are basically engineering applications, rather than directly farming. I actually see them quite differently as irrigation was not used much until fairly recently in western cultured areas while advanced plow techniques existed. There is a basic interplay here between several technological areas. All of which have agricultural benefits but they are not directly related in any way. (We could even look at tribal slash and burn as crop rotation, while the tribes have no concept of irrigation or plowing.)

I am, I agree obsessed with military technology. I do though understand many of the technological progressions over time.
For example I give printing. Printing would have a basic requirement of paper and writing. You would start with Woodblock, then proceed to moveable type, Metal type, Printing press, lithography, Iron press, mechanised press. This takes us through to 1860 odd from there we have a couple of new processes but they mostly have to do with scale and electronics. I'm not sure they actually belong just within printing. Now anyway I can see where the amalgamation of several of these is possible (moveable and metal type, iron press and mechanised press) We still have at least 5 applications of printing tech throughout the middle ages to the industrial age. Each of which was a great improvement over the last.

By the way even within my list of firearm improvements several are not directly firearm improvements. Cast bullets is actually an outgrowth of casting technology not firearms, while several also depend on chemical advances and metalworking advances.

We have Basic technologies representing theoretical knowledge and experience.

At certain points new basic technologies will come into being. (EG. Airship comes out of Balloon(is that two specific), Animal drawn vehicle comes out of domestication, etc)

These techs will be listed as a percentage, with 100 being total understanding.

Applications are the "manifestation" of the theory. At certain basic tech levels (vital techs) a new application can come into being. (Not immeadiately guaranteed, I like the inventor window idea)

These application techs are ~2X better than the previous application. (arquebus -> matchlock -> flintlock -> Basic rifle -> Mini Ball wadded rifle -> Breech loader -> Magazine rifle -> auto rifle ) Each of these will be able to be refined over time but the best any one can get to is the basic level of the next application.

These applications levels can be helped by basic helper techs.

If basic tech is not maintained applications can be lost.

Am I on the right track here? If I am, then I think we have both the theoretical and practical sides of technology fairly well covered.

By the way, inventors will make a big difference even if they only invent things with the tech 3% lower. If an application has three prerequisites, that is nine percentage points you don't have to spend to get the thing. I would estimate that it would take at least 30 game turns to get those nine percentage points in the basic tech. That's a lot, especially in a competitive situation.

I suggest that the Guaranteed Knowledge Level is listed in the manual and that the Minimum Competence level, and thus the inventor window, start 5% lower. There should be a small chance of invention until you get to within about 2% of the GKL.
---
Also how will the decay of techs work below minimum competence level and for how long will it be useful?
---
The tech decay system is basically the same as we agreed on. The only change is that the civ gets a "grace period" of 5% below GKL before the tech starts to decay.
---
RichWhen u decide to repost the updated model, also post what u have on social aspects as well as fine arts.
---
I don't have much regarding this; I will put it all in there. I never really intended to work on social stuff.
---
RPs & Money: I agree. In Civ 2 , it wass ridiculus that you could build the Cure for Cancer in one turn.

Krenske:
You are mistaken about a few details:
---
We have Basic technologies representing theoretical knowledge and experience.
---
Basic techs are more than theories. They also include plans, testing, blueprints, and the R&D for many different possible applications.
---
At certain points new basic technologies will come into being. (EG. Airship comes out of Balloon(is that two specific), Animal drawn vehicle comes out of domestication, etc)
---
Not really. There will be few new Basic Technologies. They are usually fields of study that have existed throughout history, like Biology and Mechanical Engineering. Everything you mentioned, except Domestication, is an application.
---
These techs will be listed as a percentage, with 100 being total understanding.
---
100% of a basic tech is the highest publically known level of the technology as of January 1, 2000. So if you go past 2000 you will go above 100%.
---
Applications are the "manifestation" of the theory. At certain basic tech levels (vital techs) a new application can come into being. (Not immeadiately guaranteed, I like the inventor window idea)
---
This is essentially correct, but don't forget that some applications, like a Nuclear Power Plant, will need a certain level of many basic techs.

Mark:

You are right about the equation. I missed that. It should be
dP=(RP-a((bP)^n))(c/(eP)^m)

All:

I think that the double rule for applications may have to be reconsidered, especially for military applications. In this century, the power of most military hardware has doubled about every ten years. That is too many techs. I would suggest the following progression:

After invention, the application is at 5%.
When the tech reaches 10%, it is considered to be minimally practical. I would suggest that the player not be notified until this point.
When it reaches 20%, it is practical and useful. It replaces the old technology.
From 20% to 100%, it increases in a linear fashion. (Actually, we could change this to be exponential, say every 20% is a doubling of ability. What does everyone think?)
100% is the point of diminishing returns. At this point, you should be getting a new application.

Much discussion here.

I'll try to be brief:

I would like to reiterate that I think this system is indeed playable. But personally, I still don't think it models tech advancement.

1) Gunpowder was invented long before anyone had any concept of such a thing as 'chemical theory'.

Your 'basic techs' actually seem to be 'theories'. And most discoveries thru history were made thru blind trial and error, not on the basis of a good theory that was then well tested. Only when your theories begin to approach reality (as we have begun to do in the last few centuries) are those theories any use. And even then, those theories can actually hold you back because of the inevitable inaccuracies. Who would have theorized that moldy cheese could produce a powerful medicine? It is actually the accidental discoveries that drive the theories -- not the other way around.

2) Skilled ironsmiths could be less likely to develop steel technology than green ironsmiths.

Skilled ironsmiths would be focused on the purity of their iron, and be very skilled at doing things the same way every time. Newbies with creative skill might would be more likely to 'experiment' with new ways of making iron -- or 'accidentally' mix 'impure' iron that turns out to be stronger. An inexperienced but creative civ might advance in techs faster than an uncreative but experienced civ. So I would not tie 'skill' at a single tech with advancement to new techs. I believe that makes an unrealistic model. It is often the person that throws out all basic assumptions (ya'lls 'tech') that makes the great breakthru. And many people spend their lives trying to prove pieces of theories that turn out to be totally bogus. In the middle ages, their chemistry 'tech' predicted that lead could be transmuted into gold . . .

3) Because key techs will be a major game goal, this system seems much more complicated than a 'tech tree', in practice.

I've never had any difficulty in using any tech trees -- civ 2, smac, moo2, warcraft/wc2, aoe/ror/aok, starcraft, etc. They always seem very playable (even smac, where the techs are futuristic), and indeed were the only strength of some of these games (moo2!!!). This system here, however, seems highly complicated during gameplay, at least to me. I suggest someone puts together a simplistic demo and tries it. Because the way it will play, players will *need* to memorize the tech 'trees' for each 'discipline' and all the required advancement %s. Because in gameplay, quickly reaching certain techs will be absolutely necessary for success. So you will have to learn how to achieve those. Simply blindly researching in 'catagories' of techs will not lead you to firearms as fast as someone that has memorized and maximized. And memorizing that I need gunpowder, clockworking technology and skilled ironsmiths for for a wheel-lock musket is far easier than memorizing "metalworking 70%, Toolmaking 65%, Chemistry 50%". At least to me. Because if ya'll do your jobs right (and I know you will), the tech 'tree' is basically intuitive, since it will be based upon reality -- and indeed can teach you a bit about the tech that you can take with you, away from the game. Memorizing actual technical components of a discovery is far less difficult -- and more entertaining/rewarding -- than memorizing some game-specific percentages.

At least to me. But I like very specific things, and not everyone shares my feelings.

Or had you noticed?

4) Finally, atmosphere. Numbers are not interesting. Real things are.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM Manual Idea is okay for listing them in the middle, with a note that it isn't the middle. --- List them in the middle? That would allow someone to get a tech after the listed number, which, as I have explained, would be bad. --- I suggest that the Guaranteed Knowledge Level is listed in the manual and that the Minimum Competence level, and thus the inventor window, start 5% lower. There should be a small chance of invention until you get to within about 2% of the GKL.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM One thing u'll have to figure out is not only how helper techs will affect this but also how social conditions will also. --- I think that my original inventor idea could be revived for this. I included social conditions as a big part of that. If your people don't want sonething, they don't invent it and you don't get it until the Guaranteed Knowledge Level. By the way, inventors will make a big difference even if they only invent things with the tech 3% lower. If an application has three prerequisites, that is nine percentage points you don't have to spend to get the thing. I would estimate that it would take at least 30 game turns to get those nine percentage points in the basic tech. That's a lot, especially in a competitive situation.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM Also how will the decay of techs work below minimum competence level and for how long will it be useful? --- The tech decay system is basically the same as we agreed on. The only change is that the civ gets a "grace period" of 5% below GKL before the tech starts to decay.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM RichWhen u decide to repost the updated model, also post what u have on social aspects as well as fine arts. --- I don't have much regarding this; I will put it all in there. I never really intended to work on social stuff.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM Krenske: Not really. There will be few new Basic Technologies. They are usually fields of study that have existed throughout history, like Biology and Mechanical Engineering. Everything you mentioned, except Domestication, is an application. [/quote} Now there will be a few such as Electronics, Computers, etc. But this isn't until modern times/future. About the only other one that might fall before then, but after the beggining would be electromagnetics. [quote]Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM These techs will be listed as a percentage, with 100 being total understanding. --- 100% of a basic tech is the highest publically known level of the technology as of January 1, 2000. So if you go past 2000 you will go above 100%.

We should either use my proposal or Marks. The one flaw with Mark's that may become a prob is for near-future/far future basic techs. Read the previous tech thread for details as i'm running out of time right now.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM I think that the double rule for applications may have to be reconsidered, especially for military applications. In this century, the power of most military hardware has doubled about every ten years. That is too many techs. I would suggest the following progression: After invention, the application is at 5%. When the tech reaches 10%, it is considered to be minimally practical. I would suggest that the player not be notified until this point.

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 02-02-2000 12:09 PM When it reaches 20%, it is practical and useful. It replaces the old technology. From 20% to 100%, it increases in a linear fashion. (Actually, we could change this to be exponential, say every 20% is a doubling of ability. What does everyone think?)

Proposed changes:
These are not necessarily all well thought out. However they do put categories that the player might be able to use, and also would make sense for the interface. For example the player might say they want to emphasize Hard Sciences and Military Techs. A set of "high level" sliders could allow allocation of research between the broad categories.

Basic principles for my changes...
Any category that would produce chuckles as technology moves into the modern age has been eliminated. For example what would Woodworking 94% mean? "We can now produce high-quality oak cabinets at half the cost!"

Subareas of physics especially, and several other areas, were over-represented IMO. Since most of these are interrelated, and having, for example, 10% of the basic techs being physics would piss off a lot of people, I trimmed them back to just Physics.

A "?" Means I'm not sure about it if it already exists, and that I'm not sure about the details if we decide to go with a new suggestion of mine. A * means I have added something completely new, usually with a justification appended.

Note to F_Smith: Chemistry 10% doesn't mean modern chemistry as we know it. It means "practical chemistry" rules of thumb, and alchemy. The scientific method IMO doesn't come into all these types of technologies until about 30%. Before that affects "practical" to each of these.

1. Production Technologies

Agriculture
Resource Extraction (same as Resource Gathering)
Materials Technology (replaces/includes Ceramics, Synthetics, Textiles, and Woodworking)
Metallurgy (should this be put together with Materials Technology?)
Civil Engineering (Replaces/Includes Masonry & Concrete)
Mechanical Engineering (takes up part of the slack for Physics-Mechanisms)
Industrial Engineering

2. Transportation, Communications, and Commerce

Land, Water, and Air & Space Transportation (Three Separate Basic Techs, Combining Air and Space)
Communications
Economics & Commerce
Mapping & Navigation?

3. Arts and Popular Arts (maybe collapse all these all into one?)

Architecture
Arts (Includes Music,
Gaming?

4. Hard Sciences

Physics (Replaces/Includes Atomic Applications, Electromagnetics, Optics, Physics-Mechanics)
Chemistry
Computers
Earth Sciences (Replaces/Includes Geology and Meteorology)
Mathematics

5. Soft/Social Sciences

Medicine
Biology & Ecology (Replaces/Includes Domestication, Ecology)
*Education (This is the Theory of Education, and how to effectively educate people, Not how to build schools...)
Philosophy & Religion

6. Government, Law, and Management

Diplomacy
Government
*Law
*Management? (I think this is pretty big..., should also include management of research technologies like Invention, and Research and Development)

7. Military Technologies Mostly TBD

*Short-range Weapons (progression of infantry weapons of all ages)
*Medium-range Weapons (bows to mortars)
*Long-range Weapons (Catapult to Artillery, Possibly ICBMs)

(I'm not doing much work today, am I? Far more fun to spend time here!)

As I understand it, the 'scientific' method as we now understand it didn't even really exist in practicality until about 200 years ago. Which is why I say these 'techs' are, in reality, just theories. Richard, above, said "Basic techs are more than theories. They also include plans, testing, blueprints, and the R&D for many different possible applications.".

But there was not any real use of plans, testing, blueprints or R&D in any organized fashion before about the middle of the 1800's. This system is for modern, lab-driven tech advance, Edison-style, in which highly educated men have access to vast sums of collective knowledge thru cheap books, computers, etc, funded largely by either governments or large corporations.

This just didn't happen thru most of history.

Or, to put it in concrete terms, if the scientific method comes in at about 30%, then all but the last 150 years all techs will have to be below 30%.

I just disagree that history has been a slow accumulation of a body of knowledge and theory. Almost all scientific discovery has been thru 'trial and error'. Even today -- the greatest thing about the scientific method is the way it uses trial and error. Edison had to go thru a zillion different materials until he found a workable lightbulb fillament.

Proposed general intervals for applications (there will of course be exceptions)

pre-modern 30-50% better than predecessor
early modern 2x better
late modern 5x better

F_Smith:

(Get back to work, and quit giving us crap )

On having to optimize a tech approach and general difficulty level of what we have...
If you want better infantry weapons you Pick Infantry Weapons basic tech to concentrate on. This is Infinitely simpler than in civ2 where you need to figure out that you need democracy to get rifles! (IIRC) I think we can come up with a generic research investment approach such that when you pick Infantry Weapons it will take what you put into it and also automatically put a fraction of that into helper technologies. Otherwise the player would indeed need to optimize.

So all you need to know is what you want.
What Could Be Simpler!

LJG's original tech tree, which was the kind of tree you like, was obviously a well thought out construction. He did a very good and realistic job on almost all of the tech progressions. Yet it was a true mess. There were 17 pages of techs, and it was almost impossible to sort them all out.

---
F_Smith:
Almost all scientific discovery has been thru 'trial and error'.
---

---
Richard Bruns:
Note that a basic tech like Mechanical Engineering is not just a set of theories and equations. The techs are also meant to represent experimentation, trials, prototypes, and the study of potential applications.
---
I don't see why there is any disagreement about this. Basic Techs have always included trial and error.

---
F_Smith:
how about 2 kinds of prerequisites for techs, "tools" and "data"?
---
We already have something similar to this. The "data" are the scientific basic techs like Physics and the tools are the production technologies like Metallurgy.

Mark Everson:

I like the tree a lot. You did a good job simplifying he tech structure.

The only big problem is the military technologies. Why would you add a basic tech for what is really just a string of applications? A crossbow requires different technologies than a musket, yet you put them in one tech. I don't think we should lump them into one tech when a set of applications will be more flexible and easier to deal with.