I really liked GalCiv2 except for one critical part of the whole experience. Tech tree on it was boring and pointless. Which was annoying since tech is my favourite aspect on any game in this genre. I seriously hope GC3 improves on this aspect. And I'm not just talking about lots of unique tech on races.
Multiple requirements, optional requirements.. Tech tree needs to be more complex. Or the very least it should support modding in tech tree that is more interesting and provides more options for advancement than just next in the endless straight line. Some techs should depend on more than one other tech possibly from other branches and some techs could have optional dependencies that are not required but could reduce research cost if acquired.
Other than that, I'm really exited on GalCiv3.
Antagonistic branches? "We need ships, so you'll be eating iron and coal, not wheat and barley". I even know one person who could say that.
What I had in mind (mostly as blurry outline), is that specializing in one branch (not necessarily mutually exclusive with another) could give you advantage. For example, you went expansively, developing farming, that would give you population growth, so your people could build a lot of older, weaker ships, but in huge numbers. While your opponent went extensively, picking hightech, training fewer, yet more qualified people, who would build better, newer, more powerful ships, but in smaller numbers. At the end you could break even. For you loss of one ship is statistic - you have dozens more. For him lost of one ship is tragety, he has only small amount of those, but each his ship worth dozen of yours. So it quanity over quality approach. I'm not pro-Starcraft player, but, I don't know, zerg rush versus siege tanks and bunkers. With proper timing and resources, that could be a draw. Or not, like I said, I'm not pro in Starcraft.
Of course, having "supertech", that would be exclusive, and give you "super-specialization" looks very nice, I like it. It should reflect your race traits and that path you picked up for it. I can't remember game where I seen that approach (Witcher comes to mind, but it's now quite fitting example:)), but I like it.
Yes, that type of thing works too. The catch is that doing it has to be so expensive in terms of research that I can't go "well I took all the farming tech, now I can catch up on ship tech because I can research 3 of them a turn due to how old they are" type of thing. Most tech trees in games are designed to keep the tech flowing, and thus it's hard for the tech tree to really specialize you.
A more middle road option is to have all basic techs available at a normal price, and then have advanced techs get expensive on a steeper curve than you'd expect (it gets REALLY slow). At some point you have a "Research Specialization" tech where when you pick it up lets you pick a specialization. That lowers the cost of techs in its specialist branch by half, which is going to give you a clear path in your specialization to get really advanced in it but still leave the other techs available at their ever increasing prices.
The opportunity cost for picking up an advanced tech outside of your specialization is significant, but you can still do it if you really need them.
Just wondering a lot of people were talking about the rock, paper, scissors approach to customization. What this means is that they don't like how we use micciles. lasers, and guns for attack, and shields, armor, and point defense for defense in customization of our ships. I would like to keep our customization level of our ships, but I was wondering does any know a solution to this.
I don't want to recap, but I think the earlier ideas that I summarized were a good idea.
I think that researching techs need to change how your empire is run enough to be significant. I also think that the different races techs needs to work differently with each other.
There are several things that I would like to see in any tech tree roll out. First, the research needed to acquire/discover a tech needs to be variable. Each turn, based on R and D commitments, (race attributes, labs, etc.) some points are added to that research stream. Instead of a set number of research points accumulating to acquire the target tech, a percentage probability of discovering it during the current turn is displayed. Each turn the Computer rolls against that percentage. If successful, the tech is acquired that turn, if not successful, points are added to the research which increases the percentage chance for success next turn. In short, the player will not be able to predict exactly when a tech will be unlocked. The player will, however, have a good idea when the tech is likely to be acquired. Second, the paths to acquire a tech need to be complex, require various prerequisite, and vary somewhat between each game. Some techs may have more than one prerequisite. A tech may not be researched unless at least one of its prerequisite is already unlocked. The more prerequisite unlocked prior to researching the target tech, the more efficient (quicker) (higher probability) will be the effort to acquire the tech. Prerequisite for a specific tech may be in different fields of research. Third, positive political relations with other empires that already have prerequisite and/or target tech already unlocked provide a positive bonus to the player's research of the target tech. Fourth, some randomness, or perhaps an aspect of a particular species, or of a specific 'creative facility/guild' will permit an occasional 'connection' between two currently un researched techs to form (be discovered). This might add a new but already unlocked/researched tech to a currently un researched tech. This would speed up the current research project because an additional prerequisite is in place. It might create a connection between two un researched techs, thereby modifying the future research paths somewhat. Very occasionally, it might even reveal a new tech possibility that R and D did not know existed. Fifth, perhaps, techs more than one or two ’generations’ beyond the currently unlocked techs should be invisible, so the player does not actually know exactly what techs are in the future. Six, some randomness in actual techs possible each game may vary. Upon setup of the game, some techs /weapons/etc will be varied. Perhaps, in some games, shields are only 1/2 as effective as in other games. Perhaps in some games, torpedoes will have longer ranges than in other games. ... etc. Just my two denarii.
In most games tech tree resembling shotgun's barrel - it's straight thing with no chance to get away from that course, so you forced to develop one tech after another. Some games give you illusion of choice, but at the end, you still ending with all techs, so it's not a tree, more like a broom. Or rake. Or pitchfork. Whatever.
I don't think that tech should became obsolete so fast - game session happens during rather short period of time when tech couldn't became too obsolete to be so easily studied.
You know what? I like it. I'd only changed one point - the deeper you are in tech branch, the cheaper, or at least the faster you'll study it, simply because you already know so much about the area. Moreover, we could give synergy bonus - the longer you study it, the better research is going, and, maybe, even results of research would be better.
As of basic tech... Imagine your typical shooting target, with concentrated circles, you know, x-ring, bulls-eye, 10-ring, 9-ring, etc. Imagine that in very centre, X-ring, we have most basic tech, available for everyone. Next layer (bulls-eye) will be available for those who spent time researcing most basic tech.
10-ring level represents ordinary tech and is available for everyone. 9-ring level contains tech available for those who invensted into 10-ring level tech.
8-ring represents advanced tech, and again, available for everyone (of course it is more expensive than previous levels, and studying it will take more time). 7-ring level could be available for those invested in 8-ring level, but 6-ring level will be opene into for those who invested in 7-ring level and 9-ring level.
5-ring lever represents hightly advanced tech and again, available for everyone. 4-ring level could be available for those who invested into 5-ring level, and 2-ring, and 3-ring level represents additional levels of highly advanced tech, and available for those who invested into 4-ring and 6-ring tech before.
1-ring tech represent supertech, that is available only for those who invested into level 2-tech of specified branch.
If you imagine Witcher 2 skills screen, or Endless Space tech screen, then you'll imagine 4 (in their cases) areas of specialization. We could have something similar. Every nation could have access to "common" techs of several layers - basic, ordinary, advanced, and highly advanced, yet if they want to go deeper, they'll need to invest into intermediate levels.
I think on the long run, getting through full branch in sequence, without attempts to outpace the tech tree should be cheaper and faster than jumping through levels first and returning to missed levels later.
Hm, only after I typed all that I though about "jack of all trades" analogy.
The only thing I'm not sure of, is what to do with tech trading/exchange/licensing/reverse engineering. Okay, the latter is probably least confusing, but what about the others? Should the tech we acquire this way instantly give us way to further level, or there should be some cool-down period, to prevent possible multiplayer scam, when, say, I go into farming, and you go into shipbuilding, and then we just swapped the techs and have two brances instead of one, capable to pick up any supertech we want.
And what to do with ships/buildings/vehicles opened by tech - should they be tied to tech, or it would be possible to sell/buy licenses to manufacture them separately of tech? For example, if idea I suggested, to place orders to manufacture something outside of your system, on your allies factories/shipyards, do their tech need to be capable to manufacture what you want, or they can manufcature only objects equal to their tech development? Will we need to provide them with knowledge, or we can throw blueprints in them and tell "put that thingy to that thingy, wield that thingy to this thingly, smash this thingy with hammer into that thingy and you'll be Ok"?
2ElanaAhova
I sense strong Endless Space in you.
You suggestions you turn game into probably one of most wildest "mutatons" I could imagine. And I do like certain randomness of discoveries. Probably because having research breaks tied to weeks looks a bit odd.
But we shouldn't overcomplicate this, otherwise we'll drown in our tech for tech in the name of techs.
Well about tech specialization I think this should be only one path. Maybe this could be balanced by bringing slightly down all the other paths. Maybe the specialized path should be twice as big. There would be techs you would have that you wouldn't have unless you specialized. Maybe you could have specialized units or bonuses on these techs you wouldn't have otherwise.
At this point I ywant to remind you of some ideas that I think are just as significant.
I would like to be able to research multiple techs. I think the point system where I could spread multiple points down certain paths. This would affect how long it would take to research, or this would affect the percentage of researching a tech. You should have an option of dumping all your points into one field of study. I think this should be able to change throughout the game.
I think that between research treaties and expionage some of the techs on the neighbor that you have in common this way should cause you to have some of the same techs. Not all the same, but some of them would be in common.
Even though this is technically not technology it is still applicable. I think if someone is hostile towards someone, and have advanced espionage on someone then they would have a good idea on what the other guy is building. This should cause you to build counter units, the sane kind of units, or better units against that faction
I think if you have a research treaty that you should also be able to recommend that one or more factions join with you in researching a tech. If you have the point system like I suggested above then you could dedicate some or all your points towards this. I guess this could go two ways the game could require that they dedicate the same number of points towards the tech, or everyone could chip any number of points as long as it was one point. This could only be done if the parties that were involved were at the right spot in the trees if they had that tech. If they didn't have the tech then that would not be considered.
I think you should be allowed to ask a faction to research a tech. If you have a research treaty with them. The tech would either come from you tree. If they need to be at the right tech level then this still would apply. If you have advanced espionage and a research treaty then the tech could come from their tech tree only if it is line to be researched.
I think these ideas should be also considered. Just in case they forgot about these ideas. I actually think a super good tech ideas would be a nice boost to the game.
This is the exact kind of thing I don't want. It dramatically increases the complexity to build the thing in code, as you need to now write code that can create variable path trees that still make sense. It needs to randomize things, create a bunch of prerequistes, and so on. The UI will have to display something far more complicated to convey the information to the user. The AI will have to understand how to navigate this ever changing tree.
And you know what's going to happen most of the time? Someone is going to say "I want lasers", click lasers three techs over from where the are, and the game is just going to have to figure out how to get there anyway.
A whole bunch of complexity has been added to the tree, so that it can be automated away when people don't bother trying to figure out how to get from A to F on their own, because the computer can figure out the most efficient path far more easily. Once costs become variable depending on the number of prereqs you have and such, no player can reasonably be expected to do the number crunching required to optimize it themselves - the game is going to have to do it for them.
Anytime you create complexity which you then have to automate away, you have to take a serious look at what you're trying to do.
Except for the ones who already know because they've played a few times before and remember it, or the ones who pop open Google on their second monitor/phone/tablet. Keeping this kind of information hidden only affects newbies and casual players, anybody even remotely serious will simply bypass the restriction.
Those to me sound more like they should be temporary events rather than tech effects that last all game. If they last all game, players are going to restart games on turn 1 when they see them until they get the one they want. If shields suddenly start failing for 20 turns starting on turn 274... well that makes things interesting for a while!
If it is specialization tech, then it should be antagonistic with specialized tech from other branches. Not sure it should be antagonistic with simple tech from other branches, including tech we got from other races.
Agree on parallel studies. Currently (in GC2), if I'm not mistaken, of course, should you have excess of research production, you'll simply keep researching techs from same branch. If it is completely impossible to reprogram research model to allow us parallel studies, then I'd prefer Endless Space's approach, where you create a queue of tech, allowing you to study them one by one. Currently should you pick up tech, and happen to have an excess if research potential, you'll keep studying same tech branch further. But what if I don't want to study all 5 Life Support stages, I need 1 Life Support, and then go for Advanced Hulls or Logistic, or switch to completely different branch?
Depends on individuality of tech trees. I don't think it is technically possible to create unique trees for all races. IMHO some techs should became mutual automatically between allies (most basic ones), or even already be opened from a start. But I'm not sure which tech rule out, most tech we had in GC2 were kinda meaningful and significant. Maybe some early techs from older games, since timeline has changed and most basic tech should be already studied by everyone.
Well, there is industrial espionage, but should we be able to build counter-intelligence units/buildings, that may stop all intelligence activity whatsoever. At least in typical meaning, when our knights of cloak and dagger sneak to enemies' facilities to steal secret plans, while our brave counter-intelligence specialists protect our facilities from enemies' knights of cloak and dagger.
For me whole idea of sending spies into foreign world looks odd. Humans aren't Drengin, we look different, what our spies should do, pretend they are Drengin (dreng-queen?), or watching from distance? If cities will be gigantic, chances they'll spot anything are low. At living in hostile atmopshere may not be that... simple. Sources from locals could be the different thing.
Truth be told, I'm not sure how to make espionage in game to be useful, entertaining, and more or less believable.
Joint research, manufacturing, leasing/lending R&D/Manufacturing capabilities seem to be interesting ideas and I actually would like to have them in game, as I said before.
Joint research could be done via:
- uniting R&D cap and investing it all into player-picked tech. In case of multiplayer alliance one player could be appointed formal "chief" of R&D, selecting techs to research.
- arithmetical mean, when all R&D caps of all participants are added into one pool and then evenly distributed to all participants.
- each race following own path with mutual sharing of opened tech, so instead of all of us researching same tech, only one researches it, then shares with allies, and everyone goes further. Meta parallel study.
Leasing/Lending research could be done similarly:
- you pay another race to research a tech for you. They could ask you to pay for researching prerequisite tech, or, in case you gave them those tech, they, actually, could pay you, or simply waived.
- they let you use part of their R&D cap to improve speed of your research. For a certain fee, or relationship improvement (should you lend other race use your R&D cap).
Joint manufacture could be done via similar means: we join manufacturing cap. In case of ships, that could be sort of current "globalization" - Terrans make hulls, Altarians make engines, Torians make sensors, then it all combined on assembly shipyard and then ships sent to customer. In case with buildings, they, of course, won't fly to their destination (though it could be nice pun and 1st April joke, I think). At first, components are manufactured, then they are sent to their destination where they will be assembled. We still will have time delay, but it may be more cost-effective - if three sides need 12 R&D labs it should be cheaper to build them this way, than to build them one by one by their own. And I think even within same race we should use race industrial cap to produce something, other than attempting to build it with local means.
Lending/Leasing manufacturing cap could be similar to joint manufacture, where you simply borrow your teammates resources to compensate lack of yours. Of course there still be time delay, if they are located far from you, but in case you have rather poor manufacturing, it could be useful. Also, in this case you won't send your money to mitrosoft (I wonder will we have vilve corporation, offering nice sales, or not?), but to your allies.
In case you want to manufacture something, that requires tech your "contractor" doesn't have, we can either give them tech or techs, or simply give them blueprints. In first case, they won't have to study that tech themselves, in second case they'll be able only to manufacture specific unit/building, but they still will be needed to go through tech-tree to gain tech needed to manufacture that unit, in case they would like to improve it.
That would be true for cases where we asked race to build something for us, and we don't have required tech to build it ourselves. In this case we wouldn't be able to apply our improvements to said ship or building, unless we disassemble it for reverse engineering.
Licensing look somewhat similar, only in this case race purchased license will be able to apply their improvements. And, of course, they will have fewer problems understanding how that thing works, thence increasing related research speed.
Licensing tech is nearly the same as giving tech away to allies, only if you give your allies tech for free, in case with licensing you giving it away for a fee.
To prevent possible abuse from reverse engineering or leased/lended manufacturing, possible cool-down period could be introduced - during that period scientists will be trying to understand how to apply knowledge they gained, but they wouldn't be able to apply them instantly. Buying a license would give instant (or almost instant) understanding, allowing to use tech as personally discovered. Still, licensing should be at least 1 turn slower than giving tech away to allies, just to boost team-play.
It does, I still remember teh horror when I played "lawful stupid" guy in Endless space and was rewarded with -50% to speed for 20 turns...
But I'd still prefer to see all that optional - unpredictability should be predictable, IMHO.
Regarding all the talk about espionage in this thread, Paul Boyer has already stated, that espionage won't be in the base game.
We'll have espionage-themed DLC?
Jokes aside, I wonder which types of intelligence (and counter-intelligence, including internal security) we'll have.
The game already has specialized techs for the different factions. I hear the tech trees are going to even be more specialized this time around. I didn't mean other techs than what the game is already going to have. I was actually talking about the already specialized techs that the game already is going to have, but this could be an option to add techs for sharing. At this point I would rehash what I just said on the previous post. You could add techs that no one has unless shared. I didn't mean that. If this was to hard you could simplify that by having generic techs to add to what I said to be shared to give incentive to other people, or you could work this for every combination of sharing research treaties.
This reminds me of when Japan sold computers to the Soviets during the Cold war. Japan building parts for our weapons during the cold war. The Americans offering to build the small parts for China's automobiles. China selling F7 kits to Egypt for building planes. I think this needs to be balanced. Maybe the planet can't build ships while it builds certain parts for ships. You probably have to pay for these parts. Maybe reselling for a higher price. Maybe even making kits of ships. These kits would have the parts that you would dictate. The kit would have to be built by who you sell it to. Probably the kit would be a little vheaper to sell than the full completed ship. This is reasonably doable for an ally that is not advanced enough to make better parts, You could even save up these parts and kits you buy for a rainy day.
Sorry but don't agree if your contractor doesn't have to technology then you have to give it to them, or they can't make it.
This was actually more like what I suggested above except I was talking about ships not planetary improvements that you thought I was talking about sabotage. I'm just trying to apply balance by requiring the faction to have espionage. The application you are suggesting are a little different. Maybe instead of being hostile with advanced espionage, This could also be accomplish with an economic treaty. Only for specific units not techs. This would also need to be flagged by the Devs.
I would balance this buy making this route really expensive. How expensive is up to the developers. This is a descent solution to a problem until you can research the tech, or maybe this solution may prevent you from researching the tech. This may, or my not cause an elimination of other techs in your tech tree because there is no need for the tech to be there. Your tech in your tree may still be an upgrade to this patent. This may be under the mechanics of trade goods. Maybe certain units created by technology could be considered trade goods to other factions.[/quote]
The manufacturing ideas got me thinking. I am considering something like when the French built an electronics plant for Iraq, or some of the stuff Cardel and Egypt built for Sudam. This could also be applied to the game where someone could build planetary improvements for someone else. This could some in handy for someone who doesn't have technology. This would have to be balanced. It would be more expensive to build on someone elses planet. You of course would have the option to resell for a higher price. This would probably take longer to build on another planet. In order to build on another faction planet this construction would be at least one of your planets building this. You could allocate which planets would be allocated for this. The planets allocated could not build anything on the planet while this is happening and you are training the other faction how to use this. Besides building on another planet would take longer, there would also be turns taken for training the other faction on how to use this planetary improvement. Because this improvement would require engineers from your faction there would be upkeep needed to be added to the improvement on the planet. This is not the same as buying a patent to build a ship upgrade.
Tech options I forgot to include were
You could have an option to design your own tech paths. You would have all the tech paths on the game to choose from. The paths you could choose would be a limited number, so this would not get out of hand.
Like above, except the paths would be organized into catagories that you could only pick one from each catagory.
Maybe each faction can pick a limited number of techs from a large number of starting techs.
The above could apply to tech paths. Where you would pick the paths you can study from a larger number of paths. Instead of picking the paths the paths c=would be cross eliminated by picking other paths first. Once the number of paths picked the other ones would go away.
Any part of the quote not mentioned here just means that I didn't have anything to add. Not that I disagree. Anything that I write about espionage is taking into account that there is espionage. If there is no espionage then there will be no requirement for espionage. If espionage is added later then the requirement for espionage should be added later. Or espionage requirement could be a sleeper program until there is espionage in the game.
I know, but until we see GC3 we won't have any solid foundation to base our discussions on.
I was concentrating not on race-specific tech-trees, but more on player-specific development of those trees.
For enything else I guess we speaking about same thing, only with different words and approaches.
If I'm not mistaken, F111 and Su-24 (that's the only plane that fits into "copied and build it" description) aren't that related. A9 and Su-25, or B1 and Tu-160, or Concord and Tu-144 seem to have more common than those two.
Su-25 is attack plane, I think you mean Su-27 as counterpart of F15.
And I'm not sure that F15 was created to fight MiG-25 - the latter is interceptor, it could influence the design of the former, but they aren't exact opponents. MiG-23 seems to be more appropriate "predecessor" to F15.
Nor I'm sure that F105 and MiG-15 are direct opponents - one is supersonic fighter-bonber and another is rather small and, to times of Vietnam war, outdated fighter. Su-7 seems to be better "opponent" to F105, and F86 fought against MiG-15.
Well, if we talk about copycating, then RAH-66 Comanche's Fantail is basically European Fenestron. Or US Ribbon-Bridge is exact copy of Soviet PMP Bridge. M16 (AR-15 design) could have more common with StG-44 than AK-47.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
T-34, was based on designs of John Walter Christie - as BT-tanks before it. In turn, German Panther tank was an attempt to counter T-34, and its design seemingly has heavy influence from T-34 tank.
TT pistol has a lot of common with Browning designs (including 1911). FN FAL took something from SVT rifle.
S&W Sigma and Glock.
Why build something only after you turn hostile? Production will take time, even if we outsource it for "next turn purchase", IMHO it's better to have production running before cannons will start talking, if you know what I mean.
Probes, survey parties, and satellites sent to planets of our opponents to perform reconnaissance on them by indirect analysis?
Building parts is basically same joint manufacture I meant, maybe to a different scale. In theory nothing precludes race from building engines for a ship which they got from tech that is prerequisiteto build that specific ship. The only problem - game will receive too much components parts and resources inside - we will need to have new part for every (or almost every tech) and track them all.
Kits for subsequent "DIY" kind of assembly on customers' shipyard/manufactures seems fine - you don't order ship, you order parts. Basically same building, maybe a bit longer (or faster - who know what speed completed ship could have, maybe it'll be slower than freighter).
However, dictating whom to sell looks attractive and somewhat repulsive in same time. You can preclude neutral nation from arming your opponent, but you always could be on the other end of the stick, and you may be in situation when third nation precludes your contructor from supplying you.
Ehm. Technology is natural "know how" (that thing works). Blueprints only tell how to assemble that thing without necessary understanding principles of work.
Imagine good backpack. Blueprint is simply knowing you have to fold shoulder strap attachment point 3 times in interlocking S figure, and stictch it twice in both directions. Technology - knowing why you have to fold and stitch it that way.
Or 1911 - why there is lowered and flared ejection port? Why beavertail? Why flat and arched mainspring housing? Why automatic safety?
Actually I never though you were talking about sabotage. And I'm not sure I was talking about it either. Espionage - yes, sabotage - no. I have no objections over necessity of intelligence, not just simple "fog of war removal" but more sophisticated. I can hardly imagine Hearts of Iron style sabotage in future, for same reasons I can't imagine typical spies sent on "hostile" (different flora&fauna, atmospere, not necessary population) planet to mimic locals. Drengin spy among Yor "doing a robot".
As for the rest, we still need to know what exactly is going to be implemented.
But it still should be affordable to be an alternative to tech trading, and as partial solution in case of deficit of industrial cap.
Don't think that route should be expensive, should we have our own transport. Hiring transport could require payment, or it may be included already.
In case when we do that with allies, I think all fees should be waived. Yes, Communism. Okay, maybe not waived, to prevent exploit, but exchanged (barter of a sort). Still it should be more expedient to use allies than third parties. Unless we try to lure that third party into our alliance, by supplementing them with our funds.
You mean you create your own tech tree, just queue, or path of your race specialization during this session as I suggested?
Aren't we already? Or you want to expand the pool?
Now I'm confused. You mean pre-defined "template" that has certain technologies, sort of "willingly limiting ourselves" to certain tech combined in some different ways?
Likewise.
I shortened that part for a bit.
From my point of view, asking someone to help you build something shouldn't be much different from cases where you order buyout. After all, you receive buyouts on next turn.
So I think using similar means with lending/leasing industrial cap should, actually, be cheaper than traditional buyout. The main difference is that you giving money not to some mitrosoft, but to your allies present on the very same map you're playing, or to neutral race you are trying to make your business partner. So money you spent are still within system and you used them to boost your allies' economy.
Leasing could be used mostly as allies support, when you exchange research/manufacturing cap for something else - either manufacturing/research cap, or, simply, money, or some other resources.
Lending could be used to, well, lending a hand to your allies in time of need, but also it could be alternative to traditional "old tech gifting" and "starbase influence "oppression" coaxing of neutral races. You could even agree to lend your services to a third race basically with little income or even with small loss, only to improve standing with race, because you want to make your contract most appealing. Tender of a sort.
Of course, from logical point of view, lending/leasing manufacturing (especially planetary grade) should be long - as you said, you need to ferry your men and resources, unless resources are present, and your man could provide guidance via remote means ("webinar - "how to build your first nuclear silo" for dummies" ). But there is always buyout that is fast. Of course, we could simply consider lending/leasing as "delayed buyouts".
Well for the most part we turned into a team that specifies very close to each. When we are off it is not that far off. We usually agree with each other or split hairs. You write closer to what I want than anyone else. Most of the difference is that we are not the same person. I don't think you were this close in the beginning.
When you say B-1 do you mean the stealth or the replacement for the B-52.
My bad I meant Su-27
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="112" id="3432894"] And I'm not sure that F15 was created to fight MiG-25 - the latter is interceptor, it could influence the design of the former, but they aren't exact opponents. MiG-23 seems to be more appropriate "predecessor" to F15.
Actually you would think it was the Mig 29 since the soviets were working on the Mig 25 and the Mig 29 at the same time for the same time for two different purposes. The Mig 25 was made to bring down the B-70 when the Mig 29 was the next generation of fighter. That does seem to validate your story if it weren't originally for poor American intelligence in the beginning. Things changed when the Americans got a hold of a Mig -25. This actually starts in the early 60's when the Americans made the replacement for the F-4 it was the F-12. That's when Kennedy decided to let the Soviets catch up. So they never built it thinking they weren't advanced enough for that good of a fighter while the Americans decided to keep the F-4. Then over Turkey A Foxfat shot down an F-4 over Turkey. That's when the Americans realized that they were wrong and they thought the Soviets had a F-12. When the Soviets realized that the Americans thought that their interceptor was the worlds most awesome fighter for P.r. purpose they would have made a tacticly mistake if we would have gone to war, and made sure these interceptors were placed as fighters to scare the Americans. This would have been a huge mistake on their part if world war 3 broke out right now. To counter this the Americans redesigned the F-12 and renamed it as the F-15. Once the Americans got hold of the Mig-25 they realized it was an interceptor, and realized they built a fighter they didn't need. That's when the F-16 beat out the F-17 for the next tactical fighter. To counter the F-15 the Soviets made the Su-27. At this point the S25 oviets incorporated long range and short range fighters. At this point the Americans retired the F-16 until they decided to turn a fighter into a fighter/attack plane. This is why the F-15 was built to counter the Mig-25.
That one Mig-15surprised me when I heard that on Discovery. It started with the F-86 which was a replacement for the F-80 when a North korean sold the Americans a Mig-15, bit according it ended in the Vietnam war with the F-105.
That's O.k. if anybody have any other examples they can also post them. You do seem to have a good knowledge of military.
I guess it's really up to the Dev's, but as far as American goes, we are doing a bad job of coming up with counter techs to our allies. We are doing a good job of countering our allies. As far as gaming we could allow paranoid players that think everyone is an enemy. These triggers I suggest are for balancing, but if the Devs think we don't need them that will probably alright. I kind of work it both ways with wanting to give players as much freedom while trying to make this somewhat realistic.
I rethought this what I meant by flagging is the developers marking things that they would later need to use. If you are going to use these mechanics. The specific markers I talk about is the economic, research treaties, and espionage. Other people suggested on using alliances. When these things are used, and we are assuming this mechanic. The game will need to know certain things. These are what I call flags.However, dictating whom to sell looks attractive and somewhat repulsive in same time. You can preclude neutral nation from arming your opponent, but you always could be on the other end of the stick, and you may be in situation when third nation precludes your contructor from supplying you.
But it still should be affordable to be an alternative to tech trading, and as partial solution in case of deficit of industrial cap.Don't think that route should be expensive, should we have our own transport. Hiring transport could require payment, or it may be included already.
I thought to do it the other way, so as not to trivialize techs. Also to discourage you from doing this over tech trading. I guess that would just be silly now I reconsidered. i guess you should still be advanced enough to accomplish the stuff we are talking about,but this could be accomplished through buying patents or research either way that would be acceptable. This should at least be a little more expensive because of trading, and the other civ should receive a commision on whats being made as far as the patent. In case when we do that with allies, I think all fees should be waived. Yes, Communism. Okay, maybe not waived, to prevent exploit, but exchanged (barter of a sort). Still it should be more expedient to use allies than third parties. Unless we try to lure that third party into our alliance, by supplementing them with our funds.
Well this could very well be your idea. You had some good ideas. A lot of my thinking is prompted by something else. I'm really not that creative. I'm just saying these are good ideas. I just don't always remember where they came from. I know I didn't think up this one. The next part is my modification to this though.
I meant the stock faction not the customized faction for this part. This is a good example of what I do sometimes I switch between parts without telling you. I did mean the first part for the customized faction while I meant the second part for the stock faction. I guess it was a good idea that you caught this, or otherwise I was nulling my second idea. Thanks. Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 111The above couldapply to tech paths. Where you would pick the paths you can study from a larger number of paths. Instead of picking the paths the paths would be cross eliminated by picking other paths first. Once the number of paths picked the other ones would go away.Now I'm confused. You mean pre-defined "template" that has certain technologies, sort of "willingly limiting ourselves" to certain tech combined in some different ways?
I can understand the confusion it is hard to see what I see. If I was describing a regular tech tree their would be multiple tech paths you would pick a tech and start down a path to research that kind of tech. You could move between paths as you go, but their would be a path. Here I'm getting a little greedy, and is asking to work a little harder. Each faction have a certain kind of techs and paths to those techs. This is laid out differently for different factions.
Now this is what I'm talking about. First I want to point out this is the stock faction not the customized faction. In Galactic civilizations 2 different races had different techs. You brought up the idea of being to choose different tech paths for the customized factions. What I am suggesting is doing something similar for the stock factions. I still want individualized tech trees. I also liked the idea where if you choose a tech this eliminates other techs. This idea stemmed from an idea I came up to make this possible. This would require them to make more techs for each faction somewhere around 500. These techs would be devided into branches, but basically each branch would have a similar branch with different techs. Lets say you research a tech eventually that would have eliminated half the tree. There are a few ways to do this.They would limit the number of tech paths out of the total number of tech paths for you to choose.
1. We could pick this from the beginning. This might produce really similar tech paths.
2. They could classify them where we would pick from one of two until we were done with them all at the beginning of the game.
3. One of these two setups could be done as you research instead of picking them.
4. Now as far as the grouping these could both could be specialized tech paths.
5. One we could go the easy way and basically having a specialized tech path and the Dark avatar tech paths. This would be a little easier.
If this isn't clear keep asking until I can make this clear.
This may sound weird, but just call me Quark. In time of need I would just exploit you for every penny I can get. There should be as many options as possible on this as possible. As much as you want to help your allies. I would give them as little assistance as possible for as much as I can get from them. I guess if I can't set a price on resale I can do this through diplomacy. I would bail you out in time of war with as much profit that I can make, but I can totaly feel you, so I think there should be both or more options on how to do this. I would also do this industrial for everyone as long as it is profitable until war, and then it is on.
Isn't that is what you need discussions for?
Stealth bomber is B-2 Spirit, no? B-1 Lancer is strategic bomber with variable geometry wings, like Tu-160.
From some perspective it's very complicated story of whom going to counter whom. Sort of "we thought it'd be this, but it turned out to be that". Like German Flak-18 - used as Anti-Tank weapon, because Pak-36 couldn't make even dent on Matilda, T-34 or KV-1 tanks.
Still, strange, MiG-15 was outdated back then, and even if reoriented for striking roles, like I-16/I-15 during WWII, cannot be compared with F-105. To F-8 Crusader either (or A-7 Corsair for that matter).
Jet Aircraft were developed in such rates, so some became outdated before they were fielded. Give that "pursuit of speed" and missile-reorienting, leading to planes lacking any close combat cannons...
You have Sovietus Unionus, you need remedy.
Oh, wait, you have one! Gorbachev received Nobel Peace prize, and Obama did that too! Gorbachev brought USSR down, and...
Even if idea of Nobel "Peace" prize is amuzing - Peace prize on money received from selling dynamite. Peace through superior firepower!
But if lay jokes aside, that's why I push idea of alliances, to make team-play matter, kinda tired of lots of individuals in multiplayer, finding anyone willing to play in team, and not pursuit his personal stats is saddens me.
Yes, I played a lot of teamplay-based games, starting with hockey.
I simply don't see point in restricting that. Unless few things are going to be implemented, and restriction is going to be applied "voluntarily".
Probably it would be wise to hide certain unit, tech, building or ship, to reduce chance of provoking anyone, should you use said unit...ship through some illegal activity, but that should either be optional, or... How would I put this... I mean, did Germany in 1930's cared much about world opinion when they began restoring their army back? Yes, they hid their armament development at start, hence a lot of "Model-1918", like 88-mm Flak cannon I mentioned earlier, but after their industry, military and other branches revved up they stopped paying attention.
Some similar deterrant mechanism could be implemented in GC, should we want to build something we gained "illegaly" (reverse engineering, black market, found drifting in space, betrayal of the crew (like Belenko did with MiG-25), list goes on), or forbidden by UP. Then we could have different outcomes, but so far GC is not Hearts of Iron where you could mimic Germany behavior, making your society ignoring all "world's pleas".
What I do not know, is that how much resources such activity would require, to implement them in GC3, and whether Brad and Team are going to do that or not. After all, GC is GC, and not HoI or ES.
Outside of alliance business, I consider these suggestions to be simple alternatives to existing "mechanisms" and tools to be used in politics, to improve standing with different races, and as distant, long-shot part of intelligence - by placing order you will see whether is certain race is capable to produce something and approximate their level of industry, thus allowing you to determine possible vector of their development (unless they tricked you into believing they can't make this).
Also, you could use these tools, in case of lending, to let others fight your war for you. Since we already mentioned Cold War a lot, imagine that to be USA/USSR supplying their "little brothers" and letting them fight. It is very rough approximation, because here we will still have a pinch of lend-lease flavour, where you supplied fighting factions while war is going on far from your homeland.
It's clearer now, thank you, but I was meaning slightly different thing (unless, again, we discuss the very same thing with different words, because we are two different persons). Since you own Endless Space, you probably know how tech "tree" looks there. It has four "petals" - galactic warfare, applied science, exploration&expansion, and diplomacy&trading. In roughest approximation, my suggestion is where you pick up just one tree (say exploration&expansion in Endless space example), and concentrate only on it (or mostly on it). This will give you options other players won't have. Yes, you'll lose in other areas, but in this one you will became an expert. You alone will be able to colonize worlds other only can give a wide berth to, and your colonies will be prosperous. At the end, you'll pick up super-specialization, that would give you certain unique opportunities. Maybe up to megastructures we duscissed somewhere nearby - ability to create said dyson sphere, for example.
Reason for this is because generally in games, and Endless Space is no exception, is that you have to research most parts of tech tree to succeed. To some extent, that's logical, but that creates rather homogenized tech trees, that are still brought to common denominator. No matter how different Drengin tech tree from Terran tech tree, there are still similar tech, giving similar bonuses - homogenized. I'd like to see specialization to have personal flavour. I understand, creating unique techologies that would give equal opportunities to win, since game is multiplayer and should be balanced for it, but If I Can Dream...
"Хорошо! Я буду работать для тeбя, проклятый капиталист!"
You probably can't even imagine for how long I've been waiting to put this quote somewhere, and I thank you fo the opportunity. Oh, Jagged Alliance times...
Such behavior may only seem logical, but do remember Roosevelt said on Lend-lease (yes, that hose speech), regardless of possible feelings toward that person. Yes, you want profitsss, but beware your greed biting you at your butt, when enemy who just destroyed your client, now turn his attention to you. Simply put, you can sell as long as someone buying.
But putting that moralizing aside, that's why I want to enforce more or less "free" exchange to promote natural teamplay, for teamplay sake, not individual scores or profits. Up to removing personal scores, leaving only teamscores at the end.
No need to point me on how USA enriched on lend-lease program.
However, certain profit from lending/leasing could be "inflicted" should we have a chance to transfer ships we built on next session or mission in campaign. Of course, do that with constantly resetted tech tree would be difficult, but it could be nice to have a fleet you just built in previous mission. I think I'd like to see a "cumulative" campaign where we could transfer some of our progress to next mission. Akin to Majesty 2 halls of heroes or whatever it's been called.
.
A friend of mine didn't know this. he made me prove it and I did. There are 2 B-1 bombers. One was a strategic bomber with both a A and B classification that eventually replaced the B-52. The other was the original stealth bomber that Jack Northrop didn't build. Jack Northrop eventually built the stealth bomber 10 years later in 1992 after the original stealth bomber came out.
Fighters have always escorted bombers this is true, but the idea of a fighter being able to bomb came later eventually leading to the F-14. That may somewhat explain things is that in the Mig-15 days there were just fighters not fighter bombers. I now you are going to bring up the German P-180 or the Skyraider, but a medium range bomber or an attack plane. Has a different mission than a bomber escort that can bomb too.
I'm bad I meant We are doing a good job at countering ou enemies. The statement actually contradict each other otherwise.
I totally Think that Gorbachev deserves some of the credit for bringing down the Soviet union, and making Russia democratic deserves the nobel peace prize. Ronald Reagan also deserves the Nobel peace prize for making it to expensive for the Soviets to be Communists.
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="114" id="3433080"]
Also, you could use these tools, in case of lending, to let others fight your war for you. Since we already mentioned Cold War a lot, imagine that to be USA/USSR supplying their "little brothers" and letting them fight. It is very rough approximation, because here we will still have a pinch of lend-lease flavor, where you supplied fighting factions while war is going on far from your homeland.
I did not understand about any of this being lend/lease, but I did suggest that to. I would like to be able to lend someone military until they were done fighting. If the ships were destroyed fine, but if they were not destroyed then they go back to the owner free of charge I like to have that option to. You could also give this option through the diplomacy screen, so you could also charge something to.
Agree the things you guys have been talking about is tech specialization where I suggested major game mechanic improvement in this area. These things I don't know where they came from different areas some of them improved upon. I think specialization is fine. I think it could go good with my ideas. Honestly if the ideas I suggested were implemented we would have serious enhancement to game play. I wish they will implement these tech redesigns. Your manufacturing idea is good to.
What does that mean.
Overestimated on how much I know. I always figured they lost money with the Soviets and the Vietcong not wanting to give back the equipment and all. Can you fill me in.
Something I don't like in games is that when the mission is over you lose everything you build; even, when you are building in the same place. If the next mission in the campaign has you at the same spot then you should be able to have the same planet setup. Either way you should be able to keep your fleet,
Well, enlighten me too, then! I enjoy experimental craft, they are very interesting from engineering point of view.
I don't even know what P-180 you mean, I can't remember aircraft with that name.
As for MiG-15, my point was next: during that time, more modern, and faster jets kept their role of fighters, while older, slower, were reoriented on ground-attack roles, simply because they were slower and gave pilots better options to actually see their target. And because there were plenty of older jets.
Something similar happened during WWII, when Soviet Air Force started to mount bombs and rockets on their fighters to use them in ground attack role, even MiG-3. Those were times of need.
Later Germans did something similar, when first they replaced aging Ju-87 with Fw-190, and using Bf.110 and bombers in a role of night fighters.
Just be careful - it may not be as pleasant to feel how expensive it is to be Communist in USA.
Fairly simple - lending your industry/research cap is similar to lending someone your ships, only they don't actually take them, you just let them to use it.
In rough translation that means "Okay, I will work for you, you damned capitalist!"
Speaking of which...
I've stumbled upon old Brad's interview (if it's not fake, of course), and I found it to be amusing (in a good way; in fact one of the best, and most interesting interviews I ever read). But I would like to make an inquiry. Should Brad be reading this, did he already considered us fanboys, whose advices should be ignored completely, regadless of the fact we pre-ordered game?
Okay, I probably used incorrect word, but I can't find proper one.
I didn't mean US got a lot of cash, but rather their growth in other areas - industry, manpower, influence.
As for USSR holding some equipment, well, blame Winston - should he hold his tongue behind his teeth, standing between A and SR could be much warmer.
We should be able to keep our fleet only if we could keep our industry - I mean maintaince alone will soon eat a huge gaping hole in our budget. So transition of resources should be accomplished very carefully.
I must of confused the bandit number on the F-117. I can't find it maybe it was a misprint on the article. It's at least its nt on the internet. I know the article called the original stealth bomber in 1982 was called the B-1. I've done enough research to guess either the article was wrong, or I've confused it for the bandit number.
I don't even know what P-180 you mean, I can't remember aircraft with that name.Later Germans did something similar, when first they replaced aging Ju-87 with Fw-190, and using Bf.110 and bombers in a role of night fighters.
Maybe I might of confused the P-180 for the Fw-190. Whatever plane I am talking about is the one that beat out the Messersmidt before world war 2 broke out. It was originally was going to be the German fighter, but they found it functioned better as an attack plane. Because of this plane the Mesersmidt didn't make its appearance until the Germans were definatly not going to win in 1944. I haven't seen that show for about 15 or more years, it was Wings on Discovery.
Are you talking about the recent administration.
Fairly simple -lending your industry/research cap is similar to lending someone your ships, only they don't actually take them, you just let them to use it.
This works. Can it be combined with the other manufacturing suggestions I don't know. That is for the Devs to answer with the next game. Could this idea stand alone I think it can. This would be a decision for the Devs. This is pretty much a simplified way to do what we've been suggesting. You basically want to lend/lease using a symbolic method.
I get it you are talking the industrial boost that we basically lost because of free trade. World war 2 seriously boosted our industry.
If you can find it I would like to see a copy of this speech.
[quote who="Rudy_102" reply="116" id="3433264"]
What in the world are you two talking about?
No problem, happens - I remember M1 Carbine was named as M1 Garand Carbine (don't confuse with actual Garand Carbine)... I wonder how Americans are not confused within their naming system - howitzer M1, helmet M1, tank M1, rifle M1...
Soviet had "experimental" I-180, made by Polikarpov, but it didn't went anywhere.
Messerschmitt Bf 109 had many competitors, but Fw 190 is not one of them, IIRC it was part of following call for new fighter to be on par with future competitors of Bf 109, so to an extent, Fw 190 was part of trials aimed to find Bf 109's replacement.
As it happened, Fw 190 was indeed used as attack plane, because it was more versatile than Bf 110, and simply better than Ju-87, which was greatly outdated.
Current one.
I never got into GC modding scene, but as far as I can see it:
- industrial/research caps of two nations united into one pool for a one research, or mutual tree research. Letter would be better, should be got chance to select multiple tech at once, in queue - I'm kinda annoyed to pick tech after tech. In case we study mutual tech, certain bonus could be applied. Alternatively, should we study exclusive tech, penalty on leased cap could be applied. Meaning: your cap is 764, lended cap is 581, combined cap is 1345. In case of mutual tech, there could be 5% bonus to studies, resulting in 1412 points, rounded down. In case of your exclusive tech, there will be 5% penalty on lended cap, resulting in 551 lended cap, rounded down. In case of lender exclusive tech, there will be 5% penalty on your cap, resulting in 725 points, rounded down.
- industrial/research caps of two nations is separated, allowing you to manufacture/study two things at once, in this case each cap does own thing, with bonuses and penalties applied. Reason why I push parallel study is breaking point we currently have, when we "overresearching" something in same branch further, I'd rather have two studies in parallel, to got certain result earlier. Yes, it would require significant research cap, but still, I'd rather see you dead, little girl than to be with another man that.
- not necessarily to give away whole cap, it could be just one planet's cap (in terms of industry cap, should just one thing needs to be manufactured).
Not only that - remember all outdated gear that's been sold later worldwide, it was rather significant improvement of US influence and presense in the world.
Iron Curtain Fulton speech.
"Stuff".
What are we talking about. I tried quoting multiple posts to summarize it didn't work. Rudy suggested multiple tech paths, and then changed that to tech specialization. I thought this idea was fine, but not great. So I suggested that the other ideas of the post were better. Specifically as far as the conversation goes we are going to refer to the ones that I suggested where different factions share techs. As far as the other ideas go I summarized them on two posts. I suggest reading them. Then Rudy suggested that the sharing tech idea also could refer to manufacturing.
Well maybe I saw two episodes, and confused them over the years. I watched wings of the Lufatte, and wings of the Red star both. The Red star did talk of soviet prototypes to. Not to mention 180 is easy to confuse for 190.
I don't know about the penalty. I think there should be some kind of penalty, but I'm not sure what it's up to the devs to figure out. Or maybe your idea could be implemented.
Agree the research and manufacturing cap sharing should not be everything. More like a slider. If we were going to play a game where you couldn't pick part of your research or industry to share, but you would have to pick all. This would really be a problem with manufacturing. Especially if you as a player got the Ai to agree to this. The computer opponents would be sacrificed to make others strong. Tp sum it up I agree this should be only part of the points. Matter of fact I think there should be a requirement that you couldn't do this with all you research and manufacturing points. I figured the game developers knew not to let anyone to be able to take away all the points. I didn't think it needed to be mentioned. That's why I never mentioned it. I agree there should be a limit on this.
Idea of penalty comes from hypothesis that two different races with different techs may, and probably will have little or no idea on "foreign" and "alien" tech principles. Say, Altarians unique meditation is foreign concept for Terrans, and what they supposed to think about it: Day after day, alone on a hill, the man with the foolish grin is keeping perfectly still? Hence the penalty - some concepts could be understandable, some could be explained by other side (in case of alliance or teamplay), but in general in reminds giving a complicated tool to children in kindergarten. Or in the army (without manual) - results are about the same: "what'll it be should I push this button?", or "what does this rotary switch does?".
Of course, scientists are smarter than us grunts, and supposed to understand things better, but even them could have problems comprehending something new. Especially when you give them shovel and tell them to dig their personal "outhouse".
There is a natural limit already - planets themselves. Each has individual cap, and when requesting/placing order of manufacture, and, to lesser extent - research, you can request/pick that planet you want. Of course, other side either could agree with your request, or suggest to select another planet.
Little difference with research based mostly on another hypothesis that research, for the most part, is theoretical activity, thus logistic support to move resrouces will be lower, and multiple research stations could be united through galcivnet of a sort.
How much industry/research cap to lend is fully upon you - should your ally be in severe fighting, it would be wise to lend him a hand and reorient your industry, especially if it is already developed (so you don't need new buildings) to support him, and if you want - even all 100% of it.
But I just thought... since we won't have social/military industry separation anymore (if I'm not mistaken, of course), then how many shipyards could be built, to produce ships in parallel (because of week-long breaking period)? Or we will again be tied to "one at a time"?
Anyway, here is another thought: reorienting shipyards to manufacture only specific type of ship. This is not permanent, you'll always be able to reverse the process, but it should take time. Reasons: in return, we'll get boost to manufacturing speed, and reduce of maintenance and logistics costs (because fewer parts and materials be needed). Example - universal shipyard could build 4 fighters per month (that part generally made me laugh - planet with billions of people building one fighter for a whole week). Specialized could produce 5 or even 6 for same period of time. Universal will require two months to build cruiser, specialized will do the same for 6 weeks.
Reorienting could take week or two, so there will be no point in specializing shipyards to produce single craft, but when we would need massive fleet, specialization should pay off.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
