For the game it really won't. Atomics will have to do with mainly atomic
power and some with quantum physics/mechanics but not much.

> The tech tree looks good overall. A few concerns:
> Atomics--Again, I don't see why it should be a different tech.
> Computers--Optical computing will probably come in the near future, say
125%

Well can u tell me what optical computers are. Also there's going to
perhaps be even more types, FE liquid storage computers, organic computers,
etc.

> Gaming--What is this and what does it do?

Basically represent the level and types of games/sports the civ has.

> Psychology--Why would this have ecology as a prerequisite?

The reason is, in order to understand ones mind (psycholgically) and how it
works, u need to know about the rest of the body and how people interact
with others in there enviroment.

> Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other
> transportations?

I'm not sure because it wouldn't really help in development with submarines
and such.

Also on the note of submarines, I'm wondering if someone had something like
a subsand cruiser would that be under land transportation?

The reason is, in order to understand ones mind (psycholgically) and how it
works, u need to know about the rest of the body and how people interact
with others in there enviroment.
---
Rather than being a necessity, I think it should only be a helper. You can learn about human behavior without knowing a thing about animals. Machiavelli did not know a thing about animals, but he wrote eloquently about the psychology of being an effective leader.
---
> Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other
> transportations?

Glad we got that settled.

> The other computer types you mentioned are not in the near future
> like optical computing. They belong in the far future tech tree. The
> difference between near and far future techs is that near future techs are
a
> simple extension of the current tree, but far future stuff is so different
> that it will need a new tree.

Hmm...just thought of two that need to be added:
Robotics
Prerequisite: 0-74% Electronics (30%), Mechanics (60%) **Machinery**
75-X% Computers (70%), Mechanics (60%)
Cybernetics
Prerequisite: 0-X% Biology (85%), Robotics (90%)

Add mettallurgy to electronics, ness specific prereq of copper production

> Rather than being a necessity, I think it should only be a helper. You
can
> learn about human behavior without knowing a thing about animals.
> Machiavelli did not know a thing about animals, but he wrote eloquently
> about the psychology of being an effective leader.
> ---
OK

> > Water Transportation--Shouldn't it switch to EM at 120% like the other
> > transportations?
>
> I'm not sure because it wouldn't really help in development with
submarines
> and such.
> ---
> EM motion would be an enormous asset in sea combat. A sub that could move
> by manipulating magnetic fields would be incredibly stealthy and fast.
And
> the same tech that lets you hover over land would let you make a
hovercraft
> that hovers over water.

OK

> Also on the note of submarines, I'm wondering if someone had something
like
> a subsand cruiser would that be under land transportation?
> ---
> Far future maybe, but nothing like that would be possible or even
> conceivable using current or near future technology. If it did happen,
it
> would just be a special type of land unit. Anyway, the tactical
advantages
> of such a craft would be almost nil. It would be easy to detect and you
> could counter it with simple underground mines.
> ---
> BTW Medicine vanished by accident.
> ---
> OK. Could you send it to me so I could add it to the list?

By the way, Industrial Engineering should not have mechanics as a prerequisite at 0%. As I envisioned it, Industrial Engineering is not just factories. It is any activity that increases productivity. Machines in factories do not appear until about Industrial Engineering 30%. Until then, the tech should have no prerequisite, with economics as a helper.

A few other things:
How do you get Alchemy, Wheel, Glassworking, and Networks? You have them as the prerequisites for techs that provided these things in my model. I would recommend that Alchemy be synonimous with Chemistry 10-25%, Wheel come with Land Transportation 10%, Glassworking be Optics 1%, and Networks come with Communications 70%.

To avoid future confusion, can 'Atomics' be changed to 'Atomic Applications'?

I would recommend that Government have Communication and Psychology as helper techs.

Is Masonry the replacement for Brick/Cement/Stone?

--- New Mail ---

Actually I'm thinking of long term use as well as short term. True Factory
Robots can be treated as such, but for any future techs we will prob have
too many to treat as a simple tech application.

> By the way, Industrial Engineering should not have mechanics as a
> prerequisite at 0%. As I envisioned it, Industrial Engineering is not
just
> factories. It is any activity that increases productivity. Machines in
> factories do not appear until about Industrial Engineering 30%. Until
then,
> the tech should have no prerequisite, with economics as a helper.

Hmmm then what prerequisite would u have? Because Industial Engineering
didn't start at the dawn of time.

> A few other things:
> How do you get Alchemy, Wheel, Glassworking, and Networks? You have them
as
> the prerequisites for techs that provided these things in my model. I
would
> recommend that Alchemy be synonimous with Chemistry 10-25%, Wheel come
with
> Land Transportation 10%, Glassworking be Optics 1%, and Networks come with
> Communications 70%.

Well Alchemy is at chemistry 1%, Networks also requires computers 60%.

> To avoid future confusion, can 'Atomics' be changed to 'Atomic
> Applications'?

OK, but um what is this "future confusion"

> I would recommend that Government have Communication and Psychology as
> helper techs.

OK

> Is Masonry the replacement for Brick/Cement/Stone?

--- New Mail ---
Subject: Demo 5

We should have no problem getting ready. All we have to do now is make a list of prerequisites for stuff that is likely to be in the demo.
Will there be different cultures in Demo 5? If there will be we need to make cultural units and buildings. Otherwise we just need to make cookie-cutter units like Spearmen.

--- New Mail ---

There are several problems with social tech prerequisites. The main one is that it, unlike normal techs, it requires acceptance by the people as well as knowledge. For example, most people would agree that Europeans have a higher Religion tech than they did in 1200 BC. Yet the people would not accept the idea of a holy war. So if we set the Holy War template tech to have a simple religion prerequisite,the civ would always have it unless they let the tech level go down. This is not realistic. We have to find out how to make social techs available only when there is both knowledge and acceptance.
Such a thing will have to be directly tied into the social model. As far as I know, nothing is set in stone regarding this model, so I can't set any system based on it. Also, I would probably change it if I tried to set a system.
So what I have here is simply a list of prerequisites. Having these techs gives the civ the option of doing something. The social conditions may or may not allow the thing to actually happen.

Abolishment of Slavery: Philosophy 50%, Religion 40%
Capitalism: Economics 40%
Centralized Government: Government 15%
Conscription: Government 1%, Tactics 1%
Despotism: Government 5%
Democracy: Government 60%, Philosophy 40%
Environmentalism: Ecology 50%
Feudalism: Government 30%
Fundamentalism: Governmment 30%, Religion 30%
Human Rights: Philosophy 40%, Religion 30%
Holy War: Religion 30%
Public Education: 30% in all core sciences, Government 50%
Religious Infrastructure: Religion 30%
Representative Government: Government 50%, Philosophy 30%
Rights for Labor Class: Philosophy 30%, Religion 20%
Standing Army:Government 1%, Tactics 1%

Actually we do. We shouldn't have two seperate norms for each. It will
make things more confusing for someone who might want to play both ways.
Also it will require more programing which isn't ness.

> Hmmm then what prerequisite would u have? Because Industial Engineering
> didn't start at the dawn of time.
> ---
> Yes it did. People have always been after new ways of making things.
> Anything like the most basic seperation of labor or the hiring of an
> apprentice falls under this tech. You need machines after 30%, but until
> then there are lots of ways to improve productivity.

Yes, but not "Idustrial" wise. Consider what that means.

--- New Mail ---

> We should have no problem getting ready. All we have to do now is make a
> list of prerequisites for stuff that is likely to be in the demo.
> Will there be different cultures in Demo 5? If there will be we need to
> make cultural units and buildings. Otherwise we just need to make
> cookie-cutter units like Spearmen.

Mark wants the models to be self sufficent first.

--- New Mail ---

> There are several problems with social tech prerequisites. The main
> one is that it, unlike normal techs, it requires acceptance by the people
as
> well as knowledge. For example, most people would agree that Europeans
have
> a higher Religion tech than they did in 1200 BC. Yet the people would not
> accept the idea of a holy war. So if we set the Holy War template tech to
> have a simple religion prerequisite,the civ would always have it unless
they
> let the tech level go down. This is not realistic. We have to find out
how
> to make social techs available only when there is both knowledge and
> acceptance.
> Such a thing will have to be directly tied into the social model.
> As far as I know, nothing is set in stone regarding this model, so I can't
> set any system based on it. Also, I would probably change it if I tried
to
> set a system.
> So what I have here is simply a list of prerequisites. Having these
> techs gives the civ the option of doing something. The social conditions
> may or may not allow the thing to actually happen.
>
> Abolishment of Slavery: Philosophy 50%, Religion 40%
> Capitalism: Economics 40%
> Centralized Government: Government 15%
> Conscription: Government 1%, Tactics 1%
> Despotism: Government 5%
> Democracy: Government 60%, Philosophy 40%
> Environmentalism: Ecology 50%
> Feudalism: Government 30%
> Fundamentalism: Governmment 30%, Religion 30%
> Human Rights: Philosophy 40%, Religion 30%
> Holy War: Religion 30%
> Public Education: 30% in all core sciences, Government 50%
> Religious Infrastructure: Religion 30%
> Representative Government: Government 50%, Philosophy 30%
> Rights for Labor Class: Philosophy 30%, Religion 20%
> Standing Army:Government 1%, Tactics 1%
>
> I really can't figure out how to do anything else. However, it seems
> reasonable to treat social techs like normal tech applications, except
that
> the society must accept these based on the social model.

1 : of or relating to industry

and "Industry" is defined as:

2 a : systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value b : a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture; especially : one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing c : a distinct group of productive or profit-making enterprises d : manufacturing activity as a whole

The tech includes any way of making this labor and activity more efficient.

--- New Mail ---

Mark wants the models to be self sufficent first.
---
Well, the tech tree has to lead to things that other aspects of the game use. Otherwise there is no reason to research anything. At the very minimum we should have a tech tree that leads to about a dozen new things that help the player.

--- New Mail ---

I think we should post the tech model. Currently few people even know the basic structure of the thing. I have updated the chart you sent me with all the changes we agreed to. As our only current disagreement is about something that Demo 5 will not even think about getting to, we should be able to post the model under a new thread, Demo 5 Tech.

I wanted to put the application techs and items/imrpov on there.

--- New Mail ---

> Actually we do. We shouldn't have two seperate norms for each. It will
> make things more confusing for someone who might want to play both ways.
> Also it will require more programing which isn't ness.
> ---
> There will not be two systems, just two different trees. I consider the
far
> future to be like a mod pack. Most people agree that the game will end
> about the middle of next century.

Actually it will be implimented at the same time. It will simply have an
on/off switch for no future techs, near future, far future. These will all
be shipped with the first one.

BTW we need to put items/improv on there.

OK, we should put what we have though and what's been discussed in the
forums, esp from youngsun.

I also sent this so u could also put in the various differnt types of
weapons from differnt cultures also.

--- New Mail ---

--- New Mail ---

Also can u send me a copy of what u have so far.
---
Regarding what? What else was I supposed to be working on?

--- New Mail ---

I have been going through my archive of our e-mails to see about things we might have forgotten about. Here is what I found:

Effects List: I said that I would make a list of effects for the stuff in your old tech tree. I spent so much time concerning myself with remodeling the tree that I forgot about this. By now the old tree is obsolete, and so is the old assignment. Do you still want me do do something like that for the new application techs that will be generated by the model leaders, or is it their job to assign the effects for technologies they want?

Military Tech: Last year, I made a preliminary proposal for military technologies. This proposal seems to have been replaced by the new tech model I built. My military tech work at this point should be assigning the prerequisites for the units list that the military model people give us. Is that okay, or should we still look at my old proposal?

Cultural/Template Techs: We should probably finish the social tech model before working on this. I think that they can simply be treated as applications on the social tech tree, with the name and icon being changed based on the culture (artistic/religious preference) that the player chose at the beginning of the game. I think that we pretty much agreed on most aspects of this last year, and that our conclusions are still valid. So once the social model and social tech tree are finished, I should be able to put it right in.

--- New Mail ---

Here are some more things I noticed about the tech chart:

When you have a blue prerequisite with no number, what does that mean? Do you only need 1% in that tech?

Does Mechanics mean the branch of physics? If so, what represents the civ's ability to make machines?

Why would Geology help Metallurgy?

Ecology and Geology should be helper techs for Resource Gathering.
After all, knowledge of the planet helps you find things in it.

Can 'Masonry' be renamed 'Masonry and Cement'? That would make it clear what the tech is. Currently it is not obvious that Cement is in there.

Can 'Electronics' be changed to 'Electronic Applications' for precision? I want to distinguish theoretical techs from applied ones.

We probably need a tech that covers mapping, surveying, and naviagtion. We don't have anything that seems to cover that.

Stress control makes people healthier, so can we add psychology as a helper tech for Medicine?

Still don't delete what I sent u cuz it will help if they decide to use
anything in it

>> Also can u send me a copy of what u have so far.
> ---
> Regarding what? What else was I supposed to be working on?

Well I'd like to what application techs u have basically. Those should for
the most part be decided before we put out the new model (with the exception
of perhaps the social model)

> Effects List: I said that I would make a list of effects for the stuff in
> your old tech tree. I spent so much time concerning myself with
remodeling
> the tree that I forgot about this. By now the old tree is obsolete, and
so
> is the old assignment. Do you still want me do do something like that for
> the new application techs that will be generated by the model leaders, or
is
> it their job to assign the effects for technologies they want?

no just basically try to be a little more specific on what the basic techs
will do. Some of them are quite vauge.

> Military Tech: Last year, I made a preliminary proposal for military
> technologies. This proposal seems to have been replaced by the new tech
> model I built. My military tech work at this point should be assigning
the
> prerequisites for the units list that the military model people give us.
Is
> that okay, or should we still look at my old proposal?

Don't delete it. Send it to Harlique and see what he says about it as far
as if that's what they are looking for (along with some of the stuff I sent
u perhaps).

> Cultural/Template Techs: We should probably finish the social tech model
> before working on this. I think that they can simply be treated as
> applications on the social tech tree, with the name and icon being changed

> based on the culture (artistic/religious preference) that the player chose
> at the beginning of the game. I think that we pretty much agreed on most
> aspects of this last year, and that our conclusions are still valid. So
> once the social model and social tech tree are finished, I should be able
to
> put it right in.

Yes for the most part. I still think a few of them have to be culturally
aligned to particular societies. I'd like to include AMAP of the social
techs as possible. I might have gone a little crazy in religion/philosophy,
but I still think we need some advances that aren't unilateral, albeit
culturally suited, for all civs (my point with Chi).

> When you have a blue prerequisite with no number, what does that mean? Do
> you only need 1% in that tech?

On your scale, yes, on mine it would be 0% (ie simply enough to barely
understand it). I perfer mine because its not based on current level of
tech as apposed to when it started.

> Does Mechanics mean the branch of physics? If so, what represents the
civ's
> ability to make machines?

It represents the theoretical and applicatation of the mechanical side of
physics. I really don't see the need to seperate the two since adding
appropriate prereqs will solve the problem of machines.

> Why would Geology help Metallurgy?

First off I meant it to only help a little, and mostly in the beggining.
Wait now that I think about it, it really wouldn't help much at all worth
mentioning.

> Ecology and Geology should be helper techs for Resource Gathering.
> After all, knowledge of the planet helps you find things in it.

I thought I had geology on there, but ur right about ecology helping.

> Can 'Masonry' be renamed 'Masonry and Cement'? That would make it clear
> what the tech is. Currently it is not obvious that Cement is in there.

I don't think it needs to be because today they are still refered to as
masons and the term masonry is still used.

> Can 'Electronics' be changed to 'Electronic Applications' for precision?
I
> want to distinguish theoretical techs from applied ones.

That is kind redundant. Electronics is considered the application of
electromagnetics. But if u think it does need to be distinquished more then
use "Electical Applications"

> We probably need a tech that covers mapping, surveying, and naviagtion.
> We don't have anything that seems to cover that.

Those would be application techs and could easily fit into what we have w/o
making another basic tech.

> Stress control makes people healthier, so can we add psychology as a
helper
> tech for Medicine?

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 think that covers it. The chart will be ripped to shreds on the forum
> anyhow; people will probably see mistakes that we both missed. But these
> are the only remaining problems that I see. I would like to post this
> before Monday. I suggest that you respond to this message and then I put
> the thing up for public discussion. People, including Mark, really want
to
> see this thing soon, with or without the applications. Anyway, I have
> dozens of application examples from our e-mails and I am currently
preparing
> a post.

From this point on, I would like to discuss things in the forum so other people know what is going on and can comment on it.