Alpha Centauri 2

Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri & Alien Crossfire => Modding => Topic started by: Mart on December 11, 2013, 06:31:15 PM

Title: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 11, 2013, 06:31:15 PM
These are considerations for SMAX UMOD. Current version 0.3-1

Redesigning technology tree.

About technologies, equipment, other capabilities, that are available from the very start of the game in vanila SMAX.
No technology required:
- Colony pod, unit, equipment.
- Scout patrol, unit.
- Hand weapons (guns).
- Citizens: technician, doctor.
- Theoretically a set of terraforming actions: farm, kelp farm, mine, mining platform, solar collector, tidal harness, forest, road, sensor array, remove fungus, remove sea fungus, level terrain. However, former equipment is enabled by Centauri Ecology.
- Default are also: infantry chassis and fission reactor.
There are 8 technologies with the following triggered abilities, equipment, etc.:
1) Biogenetics - with Recycling Tanks and SP: The Human Genome Project. It also Increases intrinsic defense against gene warfare.
2) Industrial Base - Synthmetal armor and SP: The Merchant Exchange
3) Information Networks - Network Node
4) Applied Physics - Weapon: Laser
5) Social Psych - Recreation Commons
6) Doctrine: Mobility - Command Center and Speeder chassis
7) Centauri Ecology - Terraforming equipment, practically terraforming capabilities. SP: The Weather Paradigm
8_) Progenitor Psych - Aquafarm
8) any 'escape' character for that guy... :)

What changes to this game part can be made? They would be on one side making the first turns more dynamic and on the other reflect "possible" technological state of landing parties from Unity Spaceship.

1. The first change, is to enable formers equipment with no tech requirement. It is possible, that such expedition colonizing a new planet would have technology of manufacturing basic and simple terraforming equipment available. For example, road building can be available from the very start. Farms cultivation can be enabled by Centauri Ecology. Actions: mining, solar collectors building, leveling terrain, setting up sensor arrays, can be available too, as technologies brought from Earth. They can be considered as simple tasks too, and one can think that some materials for these improvements are either from colony pods or their substitutes can be found. Forests? Either no tech or Centauri Ecology, if we think, that trees from Earth would not grow that easily, although in blurbs such thing is suggested. Removing fungus, similar thing. It appears, that it is an easy task, maybe only time consuming.
 
2. Changed 'Recycling Tanks' as 'SPEW & Basic Power Grid' can be available from the very start (no tech requirement). When establishing a new colony, one would need recycling of basic necessities, let's say: water, that would not be containing any unknown planetary substances and not require distilation for purification, maybe oxygen, elements and organic matter for food production in simple hydroponics. SPEW stands for sewage processing and environmental waste. Basic power grid, just that - power cables/lines in the base, so it is available in every part of the base when needed. This building in game mechanics would have other role: anti-ICS. Also, its building would need few turns, that would increase strategic options for the player.

3. Changed 'Hab complex' as 'Life support' and available with no prerequisite. This would be also anti-ICS tool. With the first pop limit set to 1, and cost of 10 this would increase player's options. A base without Life support could be only size 1, could not build colony pods, one would call it: "a station"? And it would be cheap in maintenance: less 10 EC/turn of cost. Inhabitants would use their private or simple/small size life supports. Such high upkeep would be game-mechanics, not representing possible "real" costs. The idea  of Life support, same as SPEW, is here to flavour this part of the game, when stations/bases are established. Well, maybe basic power generation can be added here too: "Life support & power generation"

4. The third facility available from the very start: 'Science Lab' (originally Biology Lab). Let's say, Unity expedition would be scientific in very large part. Every colony pod would be equiped with some scientific tools, imagine, what now we can put into Mars rovers. So that is another option for the player, to setup such lab in a base. Game mechanics would be here to speed up research in early turns, since I consider slowing research rate down considerably because of late game ease of technology acquiring. In late game techs come a bit too quickly making this game part less interesting.

5. Speeder chassis. I think it may be available from the start, not for the sake of ability to build heavy tanks, but some wheeled vehicles, that are fast. Colonists would probably have in colony pods enough tools and materials to be able to make them, after all, they would not need to reinvent the wheel. Doctrine Mobility would enable other stuff (maybe one can redesign this tech). Anyway, Spartans are good example, that it is already in the game, just the range of application would be extended to all factions.

6. And foil chassis, similarly as speeder. If Spartans explain speeders, Pirates can explain foil chassis available to everyone. However, some capabilities might be kept enabled by a tech (Flexibility or more advanced), e.g. in terraforming tidal harness and mining platform even more advanced. Transport equipment and heavy transport too, also in some tech (Flexibility?). Early foils (that could transport units) could be only from predefined units. Reasoning: Very early foil chassis would give more strategic options, but too many capabilities would overpower it.

7. Doctrine Flexibility - tech set as having no requirements. That is in regard to what is said in (6.). And this would be 9th tech available to research from the very start.

8. Colony pods - disabled from the very start and made very expensive. There is some game mechanics in it. High cost is intended for anti-ICS effect. AI would need to focus on these few early bases development first instead of building expensive colony pods in underdeveloped bases, same as human players. Bases are intended to be expensive in relation to their size, when small. Anti-ICS would encourage growing bases to larger sizes with many workers. Reasoning: considered what such colony pods (made on Earth) were said to carry from Earth, one can think that their replication would not be an easy task. Thus both high cost and maybe a tech. I'm testing Mobility, but making a new tech here might be interesting, also available from the very start. Other option: Industrial Base, I was trying it before, but this tech is already "occupied" by many other items. Level 2 technology may be acceptable, if, let's say, a faction starts with 4 colony pods. That's something to test.

9. Sea colony pods enabled like in Doctrine: Initiative. Possible, that Pirates would be in large disadvantage (AI), but it all depends on redesign of tech tree. A remark: it is possible to make different techs for land and sea colony pods by predefined units. Colony pod as equipment would be further in the tech tree. Reasoning: ocean exploration was never an easy task. Even now it is said, that Mars surface is much better explored than Earth's ocean floor. In general, e.g. open pit mine is so much easier to build than a mining platform. Same a base or station, on land easier than on ocean shelf for example.

So these are the first considerations. Overall, they give broader range of options to a player from turn 1 (MY 2101). With some additional change to chassis move points, I got earlier contact with other factions, faster exploration. Turns seem more interesting, in multiplayer games usually turns 1 to 10 or 20 have little to do. In singleplayer that may be unnoticed.
If someone has GURPS SMACX, it can be interesting developing such changes as these. And also, anyone who read SMAC books/fiction or other alien planet colonization fiction or even NASA articles, can have a lot to say here. Any comments?
Next to discuss - techs level 1.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Geo on December 11, 2013, 08:07:24 PM
For starters, what is UMOD?

1. The first change, is to enable formers equipment with no tech requirement. It is possible, that such expedition colonizing a new planet would have technology of manufacturing basic and simple terraforming equipment available. For example, road building can be available from the very start. Farms cultivation can be enabled by Centauri Ecology. Actions: mining, solar collectors building, leveling terrain, setting up sensor arrays, can be available too, as technologies brought from Earth. They can be considered as simple tasks too, and one can think that some materials for these improvements are either from colony pods or their substitutes can be found. Forests? Either no tech or Centauri Ecology, if we think, that trees from Earth would not grow that easily, although in blurbs such thing is suggested. Removing fungus, similar thing. It appears, that it is an easy task, maybe only time consuming.

Just my :2c:, and I'll most likely include it in my Tau Ceti project as well.
IMO, anything vehicular based or in need of manufacturing should be linked to a technology. While it is true that interstellar colonists would bring with them certain equipment, that doesn't mean they can build new stuff from the start. They need to set up the necessary infrastructure to construct these items at large(r) scale(s), and the easiest way is to think of technologies as setting up said basic infrastructure. Farms and mines could be thought of as basic actions, but solar panels aren't that simple to rig. Now if you replaced those with a sort of windmill instead, you might be in business. ;)
 
2. Changed 'Recycling Tanks' as 'SPEW & Basic Power Grid' can be available from the very start (no tech requirement). When establishing a new colony, one would need recycling of basic necessities, let's say: water, that would not be containing any unknown planetary substances and not require distilation for purification, maybe oxygen, elements and organic matter for food production in simple hydroponics. SPEW stands for sewage processing and environmental waste. Basic power grid, just that - power cables/lines in the base, so it is available in every part of the base when needed. This building in game mechanics would have other role: anti-ICS. Also, its building would need few turns, that would increase strategic options for the player.

There's no telling if alien microbes would be as sufficient in 'recycling' Terrestrial stuff as we see organic matter decaying all around us here on Earth. So a basic tech to represent the tests&cultivation of either terrestrial or alien microbes should be considered.

3. Changed 'Hab complex' as 'Life support' and available with no prerequisite. This would be also anti-ICS tool. With the first pop limit set to 1, and cost of 10 this would increase player's options. A base without Life support could be only size 1, could not build colony pods, one would call it: "a station"? And it would be cheap in maintenance: less 10 EC/turn of cost. Inhabitants would use their private or simple/small size life supports. Such high upkeep would be game-mechanics, not representing possible "real" costs. The idea  of Life support, same as SPEW, is here to flavour this part of the game, when stations/bases are established. Well, maybe basic power generation can be added here too: "Life support & power generation"

Interesting idea. The only drawback I can see here are 'local' aliens, like the Progenitors. These are not supposed to need life support equipment like humans do on Chiron.
Or would you simply put POPULATION, 6, for all human factions? And what about SP's like the Planetary Transit System or Ascetic Virtues? These would circumvent this basic setup for new bases.
However 'Ascetic' one might be, without sufficient oxygen one simply doesn't survive. :P

4. The third facility available from the very start: 'Science Lab' (originally Biology Lab). Let's say, Unity expedition would be scientific in very large part. Every colony pod would be equiped with some scientific tools, imagine, what now we can put into Mars rovers. So that is another option for the player, to setup such lab in a base. Game mechanics would be here to speed up research in early turns, since I consider slowing research rate down considerably because of late game ease of technology acquiring. In late game techs come a bit too quickly making this game part less interesting.

I'm torn between your proposal and place the 'biolab' it under the "[insert star name] Ecology" tech. Perhaps put the Weather Paradigm on its former tech (Centauri Meditation)?

5. Speeder chassis. I think it may be available from the start, not for the sake of ability to build heavy tanks, but some wheeled vehicles, that are fast. Colonists would probably have in colony pods enough tools and materials to be able to make them, after all, they would not need to reinvent the wheel. Doctrine Mobility would enable other stuff (maybe one can redesign this tech). Anyway, Spartans are good example, that it is already in the game, just the range of application would be extended to all factions.

6. And foil chassis, similarly as speeder. If Spartans explain speeders, Pirates can explain foil chassis available to everyone. However, some capabilities might be kept enabled by a tech (Flexibility or more advanced), e.g. in terraforming tidal harness and mining platform even more advanced. Transport equipment and heavy transport too, also in some tech (Flexibility?). Early foils (that could transport units) could be only from predefined units. Reasoning: Very early foil chassis would give more strategic options, but too many capabilities would overpower it.

7. Doctrine Flexibility - tech set as having no requirements. That is in regard to what is said in (6.). And this would be 9th tech available to research from the very start.

Usually there's plenty of opportunity to catch free rovers by popping the pods. The landing pods were used to ferry people down. Cargo was put in more basic 'drop pods'. And the energy often acquired by popping pods actually represents the same thing: tools/equipment to hurry the current manufacturing (production).
And the Pirates so to speak 'raided' the aquatic equipment on the Unity, hence there possession of Doc: Flexibility -and Mobility.
But 6) and 7) are a bit too interwoven to offer a quick response.

8. Colony pods - disabled from the very start and made very expensive. There is some game mechanics in it. High cost is intended for anti-ICS effect. AI would need to focus on these few early bases development first instead of building expensive colony pods in underdeveloped bases, same as human players. Bases are intended to be expensive in relation to their size, when small. Anti-ICS would encourage growing bases to larger sizes with many workers. Reasoning: considered what such colony pods (made on Earth) were said to carry from Earth, one can think that their replication would not be an easy task. Thus both high cost and maybe a tech. I'm testing Mobility, but making a new tech here might be interesting, also available from the very start. Other option: Industrial Base, I was trying it before, but this tech is already "occupied" by many other items. Level 2 technology may be acceptable, if, let's say, a faction starts with 4 colony pods. That's something to test.

9. Sea colony pods enabled like in Doctrine: Initiative. Possible, that Pirates would be in large disadvantage (AI), but it all depends on redesign of tech tree. A remark: it is possible to make different techs for land and sea colony pods by predefined units. Colony pod as equipment would be further in the tech tree. Reasoning: ocean exploration was never an easy task. Even now it is said, that Mars surface is much better explored than Earth's ocean floor. In general, e.g. open pit mine is so much easier to build than a mining platform. Same a base or station, on land easier than on ocean shelf for example.

Whole-heartedly agreed. ;)
Besides, you could even replace escape pods with normal colony pods in the alphax #units list, and make sure there's Unity foil(s) with sufficient cargo capacity to carry all the equipment. This would give an aquatic player either none or one seabase to start with, and either one or two normal colony pods. This would give such an aquatic faction the ability to compete better with land-based factions since it has a choice: either stay land-based due to small seas, or colonize the oceans once the ability is researched.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kilkakon on December 12, 2013, 03:26:02 AM
Yeah, I have not heard of UMOD either. Good to see something is still going on though. :)
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: JarlWolf on December 12, 2013, 07:48:00 AM
Yeah, I have not heard of UMOD either. Good to see something is still going on though. :)

I'll probably pick activity up after December and continue some AAR's that are long overdue... combine sickness causing me to have lost a lot of weight and winter in general, activity here is hard for me to maintain.

Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kataphraktoi on December 12, 2013, 11:28:36 AM
Just some of my own random thoughts here, might not be helpful or relevant to this mods goal

It seems to me that things like mines are not simple holes in the ground but relatively advanced complexes capable of digging deep and hauling up much more than mines here on earth today;not one operation for gold or another for iron, but everything, all the features, all in one place in a tough environment. After 50-100 years of operation those mines are still putting out 4 minerals every year with no repair or touch ups needed, that suggests to me they are miniature colonies in their own right with recycling facilities etc

Is there any way to speed up greatly the initial tech rates then slow it down around the tier 2-3 techs? (industrial automation shouldnt be as easy to research as applied physics) Unfortunately it seems techs cant be assigned their own difficulty values with the way the game is coded.

What i would like to see in a new tech tree is maybe bringing some of the forgotten and useless things to the forefront and maybe pushing current stuff up quite a bit. Industrial Automation, maybe that could be a Build 6 level tech to throw out a random number. Bring the future SE in closer to the 5-6-7 range and make all the other SE available within the first 3 tech levels and maybe do some rebalancing there;we seem to be running democracy\free market\wealth almost all of the time. Some unit attachments are never seen;cloaking and deep pressure hulls for instance. Make psi gates available sooner maybe

About close base spacing in general. Right now the game encourages fairly tight bace placing, on average mine are getting placed with 3 tiles of separation, or less. With condensors you only need so many tiles per base to get up to max capacity. One problem is the colony pod speed is glacial;spending 10 turns to walk to a nice spot just makes no sense;you can use formers to make roads out but the former has to spend a turn moving and the roads are not quick to make. I would like to see more sprawling empires and actually see colonization of far lands being possible and profitable. To make this more possible the beneficial alternatives should be either weakened or pushed up the tech tree;at some point it just makes sense to focus on vertical development, investing resources into advanced terraforming and infrastructure developments.

As nice as the 3d map is, its all rather bland and similar;using formers you can make about any land as equally productive as any other land so theres no incentive to move out. In civ4 it takes it to the other end of the spectrum and every inch of the map is quickly occupied. As a sometimes CMN and map designer i like to put landmark tiles and extra bonus resources and anything else cab ne seen as appealing for base settlement but there is still only so far people will travel to settle and only limited options on what kind of goodies to place. Tiles like gold will get alot of attention in civ4 but here all energy\bonus tiles are the same and not particularly appealing.

The way colony pods move could be looked at, a bump-up in speed could help here. Just increasing the speed of units in general might be good;as it is armies you dispatch will often end up being obsoleted by rapid tech advances later in the game so warfare tends to rely on magtubes, orbital drops, and unit upgrades in the field to keep up. Someone said that smac is a game of exponential growth and the destructive force available rapidly accelerates towards the middle\end game, probably too much so imo. But how to address late game tech speed without seriously nerfing alot of stuff? When your throwing fusion labs into size14 bases with all the advanced terraforming, research capacity is going to be increasing far faster than tech costs. Boreholes, Condensers and Echelon Mirrors could be kicked all the way up to advanced ecological engineering maybe, but thats quite a large change. Heck on a waterworld map you dont need any of those things to have good tech rates;Tidal Harness with FM+thermoclines are putting out 4 energy per turn from a simple and basic terraforming operation. So tech speed just goes up and up
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 12, 2013, 12:23:24 PM
Thank you for the comments! :)
For starters, what is UMOD?

The link to version 0.2
However, it is version with changes that will no longer be developed. In large part this mod is in stage of exploring possible game mechanics changes and their outcomes.
http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?1151-Creation-Unity-Mod-for-SMACX-v-0-2&p=41330&viewfull=1#post41330 (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?1151-Creation-Unity-Mod-for-SMACX-v-0-2&p=41330&viewfull=1#post41330)
And version 0.1
http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?1100-Creation-New-Mod-for-early-testing&p=40187&viewfull=1#post40187 (http://www.weplayciv.com/forums/showthread.php?1100-Creation-New-Mod-for-early-testing&p=40187&viewfull=1#post40187)
Quote
Just my :2c:, and I'll most likely include it in my Tau Ceti project as well.
IMO, anything vehicular based or in need of manufacturing should be linked to a technology. While it is true that interstellar colonists would bring with them certain equipment, that doesn't mean they can build new stuff from the start. They need to set up the necessary infrastructure to construct these items at large(r) scale(s), and the easiest way is to think of technologies as setting up said basic infrastructure. Farms and mines could be thought of as basic actions, but solar panels aren't that simple to rig. Now if you replaced those with a sort of windmill instead, you might be in business. ;)

Yes, a technology is a good way to represent effort to acquire some more advanced equipment. At the same time, the game itself allows factions to posses from the very start such technologies, e.g. Pirates both Mobility and Flexibility, Gaians know Centauri Ecology! only when just landed! I have an idea to give all factions no technologies from the start. All of them have no techs.

And here, based on your comments, this might look like this:
One can consider, that they have such basic tech or techs brought from Earth, and all factions get that tech from the start. In this case we do not need an actual free starting technology, no need to use valuable tech slot from alphax.txt, but this Earth knowledge tech has stuff set as with no prerequisite.

Basic infrastructure can be very simple. Open pit mine can be nothing more than what you can make with 10 people having pickaxes, spades (shovels), maybe some explosives from Unity supplies. Solar energy in its simplest application is concave mirror that heats oil in a pipe placed in a focal point. Heated oil then produces steam. That is true, you may think of difficulties making such device: reflective surfaces and piping capable of sustaining hundreds of Celsius degrees. But this can be then included in Earth technology. Photovoltaics would come later. and we are limited with terrain improvements in SMACX, so under "solar collector" we may have various technological solutions from simple to more advanced.
Quote
There's no telling if alien microbes would be as sufficient in 'recycling' Terrestrial stuff as we see organic matter decaying all around us here on Earth. So a basic tech to represent the tests&cultivation of either terrestrial or alien microbes should be considered.

SPEW is actually NASA idea, as far as I know. It was applied in "Outpost" game. The technology was considered to apply on no-atmosphere/no-life planets. The microorganisms colonists would bring with them. We have also a lot of bacteria in and on our bodies too. SPEW in its first application would deal with matter from humans and human activities only. Other recycling is just collecting garbage and reusing everything/every element and chemical compound that is in it.

Further technologies might be considered to improve recycling, but SMACX give us no capability to change rec tanks yield.
Quote
Interesting idea. The only drawback I can see here are 'local' aliens, like the Progenitors. These are not supposed to need life support equipment like humans do on Chiron.
Or would you simply put POPULATION, 6, for all human factions? And what about SP's like the Planetary Transit System or Ascetic Virtues? These would circumvent this basic setup for new bases.
However 'Ascetic' one might be, without sufficient oxygen one simply doesn't survive. :P

Yes, that is a problem. For the start, these SP can be placed in later techs, so at least early game gives that feeling of fighting for "life sustainability" on an alien world.
And as for the Aliens. In basic mod edition, I think of making their role minor. I am considering original SMAC a better story than crossfire expansion. Human only here. It's a bit like Edward James Olmos, who said that on day he sees one alien in Battlestar Galactica series, he quits the series. Or something like that.
Progenitor ruins and remnant technologies are interesting still.
Quote

I'm torn between your proposal and place the 'biolab' it under the "[insert star name] Ecology" tech. Perhaps put the Weather Paradigm on its former tech (Centauri Meditation)?


Biolab seems too late in vanila, isn't it? Or maybe biolab is really advanced native lab life only. But then, network node seems insufficient science support. The same is for mineral multiplication. I think of giving production multiplication much earlier.
Quote

Usually there's plenty of opportunity to catch free rovers by popping the pods. The landing pods were used to ferry people down. Cargo was put in more basic 'drop pods'. And the energy often acquired by popping pods actually represents the same thing: tools/equipment to hurry the current manufacturing (production).
And the Pirates so to speak 'raided' the aquatic equipment on the Unity, hence there possession of Doc: Flexibility -and Mobility.
But 6) and 7) are a bit too interwoven to offer a quick response.


I'm still not quite sure, if giving speeders and even more foils from the very start. But then, SMACX doesn't need to start from stone age.
Quote
Whole-heartedly agreed. ;)
Besides, you could even replace escape pods with normal colony pods in the alphax #units list, and make sure there's Unity foil(s) with sufficient cargo capacity to carry all the equipment. This would give an aquatic player either none or one seabase to start with, and either one or two normal colony pods. This would give such an aquatic faction the ability to compete better with land-based factions since it has a choice: either stay land-based due to small seas, or colonize the oceans once the ability is researched.

Good idea. I wonder how fans of aquatic factions would like that kind of game. On the other side, I lack game capability of stages in ocean colonization. e.g. you first create bases on shelf as platforms, then you can later create bases underwater and on increasing depth. SMACX 2 probably...

Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 12, 2013, 12:59:10 PM
Just some of my own random thoughts here, might not be helpful or relevant to this mods goal

It seems to me that things like mines are not simple holes in the ground but relatively advanced complexes capable of digging deep and hauling up much more than mines here on earth today;not one operation for gold or another for iron, but everything, all the features, all in one place in a tough environment. After 50-100 years of operation those mines are still putting out 4 minerals every year with no repair or touch ups needed, that suggests to me they are miniature colonies in their own right with recycling facilities etc
Yes, mines can be very complex, but there can be simple ones too. As posted in previous post, we would start from open pit ones, simple as they can be.
Quote
Is there any way to speed up greatly the initial tech rates then slow it down around the tier 2-3 techs? (industrial automation shouldnt be as easy to research as applied physics) Unfortunately it seems techs cant be assigned their own difficulty values with the way the game is coded.
Indirectly there is a way: by slowing overall research rate and speeding up early tech adancement to compensate. Changes to research facilities placement on tech tree, also other ways of giving research points. This is without exe modification.
Quote
...

About close base spacing in general. Right now the game encourages fairly tight bace placing, on average mine are getting placed with 3 tiles of separation, or less. With condensors you only need so many tiles per base to get up to max capacity. One problem is the colony pod speed is glacial;spending 10 turns to walk to a nice spot just makes no sense;you can use formers to make roads out but the former has to spend a turn moving and the roads are not quick to make. I would like to see more sprawling empires and actually see colonization of far lands being possible and profitable. To make this more possible the beneficial alternatives should be either weakened or pushed up the tech tree;at some point it just makes sense to focus on vertical development, investing resources into advanced terraforming and infrastructure developments.
In version 0.2 already tried increased move points. Effects are very interesting, though one needs to compensate for infantry versus base combat bonus. And additional effects are from easy road building, which in vanila is slow, I think. 3-4 turns building a road, with 1 turn additionally for entering the tile - that's too slow.
Quote
As nice as the 3d map is, its all rather bland and similar;using formers you can make about any land as equally productive as any other land so theres no incentive to move out. In civ4 it takes it to the other end of the spectrum and every inch of the map is quickly occupied. As a sometimes CMN and map designer i like to put landmark tiles and extra bonus resources and anything else cab ne seen as appealing for base settlement but there is still only so far people will travel to settle and only limited options on what kind of goodies to place. Tiles like gold will get alot of attention in civ4 but here all energy\bonus tiles are the same and not particularly appealing.

The way colony pods move could be looked at, a bump-up in speed could help here. Just increasing the speed of units in general might be good;as it is armies you dispatch will often end up being obsoleted by rapid tech advances later in the game so warfare tends to rely on magtubes, orbital drops, and unit upgrades in the field to keep up. Someone said that smac is a game of exponential growth and the destructive force available rapidly accelerates towards the middle\end game, probably too much so imo. But how to address late game tech speed without seriously nerfing alot of stuff? When your throwing fusion labs into size14 bases with all the advanced terraforming, research capacity is going to be increasing far faster than tech costs. Boreholes, Condensers and Echelon Mirrors could be kicked all the way up to advanced ecological engineering maybe, but thats quite a large change. Heck on a waterworld map you dont need any of those things to have good tech rates;Tidal Harness with FM+thermoclines are putting out 4 energy per turn from a simple and basic terraforming operation. So tech speed just goes up and up

Exponential energy growth, I agree, I think it is a problem to deal with. So far I tried something similar to research solution. And one can do some energy income leveling, but that is difficult task. Humans can deal with it better, since they can calculate when to build energy multiplying facilities, when they get high cost. This is one of the ways: decrease energy multiplication by assigning high cost to facilities that do it. What can also help is making energy consumption in bases high. The problem is with AI, who can not deal with it well. We have no tools like in civ4, that you can do in python.

I was thinking of changing energy in sea tiles, but so far, maybe not yet. I think, I decreased nutrients, but also nutrient row is shorter in the mod.
Up till now. the way of dealing with energy, that I try is with increasing costs. Unless a better way is suggested, this works better in my opinion, than decreasing energy yields.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 12, 2013, 06:29:07 PM
1. The first change, is to enable formers equipment with no tech requirement. It is possible, that such expedition colonizing a new planet would have technology of manufacturing basic and simple terraforming equipment available. For example, road building can be available from the very start. Farms cultivation can be enabled by Centauri Ecology. Actions: mining, solar collectors building, leveling terrain, setting up sensor arrays, can be available too, as technologies brought from Earth. They can be considered as simple tasks too, and one can think that some materials for these improvements are either from colony pods or their substitutes can be found. Forests? Either no tech or Centauri Ecology, if we think, that trees from Earth would not grow that easily, although in blurbs such thing is suggested. Removing fungus, similar thing. It appears, that it is an easy task, maybe only time consuming.

Could work...
 
Quote
2. Changed 'Recycling Tanks' as 'SPEW & Basic Power Grid' can be available from the very start (no tech requirement). When establishing a new colony, one would need recycling of basic necessities, let's say: water, that would not be containing any unknown planetary substances and not require distilation for purification, maybe oxygen, elements and organic matter for food production in simple hydroponics. SPEW stands for sewage processing and environmental waste. Basic power grid, just that - power cables/lines in the base, so it is available in every part of the base when needed. This building in game mechanics would have other role: anti-ICS. Also, its building would need few turns, that would increase strategic options for the player.

Recycling tanks generally support ICS.  Making it not require Biogenetics would make Biogenetics a fairly weak tech.

Quote
3. Changed 'Hab complex' as 'Life support' and available with no prerequisite. This would be also anti-ICS tool. With the first pop limit set to 1, and cost of 10 this would increase player's options. A base without Life support could be only size 1, could not build colony pods, one would call it: "a station"? And it would be cheap in maintenance: less 10 EC/turn of cost. Inhabitants would use their private or simple/small size life supports. Such high upkeep would be game-mechanics, not representing possible "real" costs. The idea  of Life support, same as SPEW, is here to flavour this part of the game, when stations/bases are established. Well, maybe basic power generation can be added here too: "Life support & power generation"

As flavor, it works.  Mechanically, I don't think requiring any maintenance to grow beyond size 1 is a good idea.

Quote
4. The third facility available from the very start: 'Science Lab' (originally Biology Lab). Let's say, Unity expedition would be scientific in very large part. Every colony pod would be equiped with some scientific tools, imagine, what now we can put into Mars rovers. So that is another option for the player, to setup such lab in a base. Game mechanics would be here to speed up research in early turns, since I consider slowing research rate down considerably because of late game ease of technology acquiring. In late game techs come a bit too quickly making this game part less interesting.

Could work; it would increase the power of production-supported worm rushing, though, by allowing a +lifecycle facility to be built so early.

Quote
5. Speeder chassis. I think it may be available from the start, not for the sake of ability to build heavy tanks, but some wheeled vehicles, that are fast. Colonists would probably have in colony pods enough tools and materials to be able to make them, after all, they would not need to reinvent the wheel. Doctrine Mobility would enable other stuff (maybe one can redesign this tech). Anyway, Spartans are good example, that it is already in the game, just the range of application would be extended to all factions.

It's a very powerful option, especially that early; this will have huge effects on the early game, as well as making it more aggressive.

Quote
6. And foil chassis, similarly as speeder. If Spartans explain speeders, Pirates can explain foil chassis available to everyone. However, some capabilities might be kept enabled by a tech (Flexibility or more advanced), e.g. in terraforming tidal harness and mining platform even more advanced. Transport equipment and heavy transport too, also in some tech (Flexibility?). Early foils (that could transport units) could be only from predefined units. Reasoning: Very early foil chassis would give more strategic options, but too many capabilities would overpower it.

Still might be a bit much mechanically.  What you're describing will probably result in a fairly aggressive early game.

Quote
7. Doctrine Flexibility - tech set as having no requirements. That is in regard to what is said in (6.). And this would be 9th tech available to research from the very start.

This will make the race to air power shorter, and thus more deadly.

Quote
8. Colony pods - disabled from the very start and made very expensive. There is some game mechanics in it. High cost is intended for anti-ICS effect. AI would need to focus on these few early bases development first instead of building expensive colony pods in underdeveloped bases, same as human players. Bases are intended to be expensive in relation to their size, when small. Anti-ICS would encourage growing bases to larger sizes with many workers. Reasoning: considered what such colony pods (made on Earth) were said to carry from Earth, one can think that their replication would not be an easy task. Thus both high cost and maybe a tech. I'm testing Mobility, but making a new tech here might be interesting, also available from the very start. Other option: Industrial Base, I was trying it before, but this tech is already "occupied" by many other items. Level 2 technology may be acceptable, if, let's say, a faction starts with 4 colony pods. That's something to test.

This will drive aggression way up.

Quote
9. Sea colony pods enabled like in Doctrine: Initiative. Possible, that Pirates would be in large disadvantage (AI), but it all depends on redesign of tech tree. A remark: it is possible to make different techs for land and sea colony pods by predefined units. Colony pod as equipment would be further in the tech tree. Reasoning: ocean exploration was never an easy task. Even now it is said, that Mars surface is much better explored than Earth's ocean floor. In general, e.g. open pit mine is so much easier to build than a mining platform. Same a base or station, on land easier than on ocean shelf for example.

This could be viable.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 12, 2013, 07:24:20 PM


Recycling tanks generally support ICS.  Making it not require Biogenetics would make Biogenetics a fairly weak tech.
That's true. There is though a way to offset this effect by making rec tanks necessary to get minerals and especially any energy from base tile. So far, Base tile gives only 2 nutrients when not aided by recycling. You get no minerals and have no chance for energy even if it is boosted by +ECONOMY or more, not even headquarters Base. This can be done by setting base tile apropriately. By assigning high cost to recycling tanks you make a player to pay for "basic" base operation. This will discourage, in my opinion, building many bases that are planned to be not developed, or a player can do it accepting higher cost.

Biogenetics can get other triggered stuff. Also, Human Genome Project is not something with little value.
Quote

Quote
3. Changed 'Hab complex' as 'Life support' and available with no prerequisite. ...

As flavor, it works.  Mechanically, I don't think requiring any maintenance to grow beyond size 1 is a good idea.
This is a try to make something like in civ4. When you increase number of cities in civ4, their maintenance grows. You could still have many bases with size 1, but for a price of very expensive colony pod, lack of ability of such base to produce more colony pods and with max 1 worker having little production. Convoy crawlers will also be very expensive. Higher investment costs will reduce this "exponential growth" effect that we have in SMACX. At least I think it may work like this. When version 0.4 is completed, tests will show.
Quote
Quote
4. The third facility available from the very start: 'Science Lab' (originally Biology Lab). ...

Could work; it would increase the power of production-supported worm rushing, though, by allowing a +lifecycle facility to be built so early.
Mindworms would not be enabled here. But with cheaper facility, by the time this higher tech for mindworms is researched, all of a faction bases may have it. On the other hand, such morale bonus would be equally available to all factions.

One can think of making some offset to this. There is at least one way I think of right now. In combat rules it can be adjusted offense:defense ratio. Even separately for land, sea and air!
Quote
Quote
5. Speeder chassis. ...

It's a very powerful option, especially that early; this will have huge effects on the early game, as well as making it more aggressive.
That's true, and I was thinking about enhancing bases defensive rating. And when colony pods are expensive, players, AI too, I think, would manufacture more defensive units.
Quote
Quote
7. Doctrine Flexibility - tech set as having no requirements. That is in regard to what is said in (6.). And this would be 9th tech available to research from the very start.

This will make the race to air power shorter, and thus more deadly.
Yes, but 2 things are in plans:
- Air Power made more distant in tech tree.
- Air power offensive strategies make somewhat weaker, for example by making AAA easier to get, etc.

This needs testing and more attention.
Quote
Quote
8. Colony pods - disabled from the very start and made very expensive. ...

This will drive aggression way up.
Multiplayer tests would be needed. I cannot know, how other human players would think, but with less opportunity to grow so fast and spread many bases, players may pay more attention to defense. And not defense by offense, but actually guarding their territory.

Multiplayer tests would be very interesting.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 12, 2013, 07:46:54 PM
That's true. There is though a way to offset this effect by making rec tanks necessary to get minerals and especially any energy from base tile.

That could work, though a base in bad terrain for minerals will end up being unable to build anything until terraforming or rushing (and if it's your first base, you could have a problem...)

Quote
You get no minerals and have no chance for energy even if it is boosted by +ECONOMY or more, not even headquarters Base. This can be done by setting base tile apropriately.

Actually, I don't think it can.

Quote
By assigning high cost to recycling tanks you make a player to pay for "basic" base operation. This will discourage, in my opinion, building many bases that are planned to be not developed, or a player can do it accepting higher cost.

It will also be fairly crippling in the early game.  Better to assign high cost to the multiplier facilities that are needed to make bases effective in the late game.

Quote
Biogenetics can get other triggered stuff. Also, Human Genome Project is not something with little value.

Human genome project is only for one player, and will probably not be built until well after you have the tech anyway due to the fairly high mineral cost for that stage of the game.

Quote
This is a try to make something like in civ4. When you increase number of cities in civ4, their maintenance grows.

Yes, and it prevents ICS because it grows faster than the number of cities.  What you're doing is "when you increase the number of cities beyond size 1, their maintenance grows as fast as the number of cities", which will not have the same effect.

What you really want, I think, is to make bureaucracy drones more punishing, so the cost of controlling them is prohibitive under ICS.  (Bureaucracy drones are the SMAC/X equivalent to that increasing maintenance cost.)  Setting the drone rules code to include options 2 and 8 should help substantially there; if ICS is still a problem with those settings, let me know and I may be able to figure out something else.

Quote
You could still have many bases with size 1, but for a price of very expensive colony pod, lack of ability of such base to produce more colony pods and with max 1 worker having little production. Convoy crawlers will also be very expensive. Higher investment costs will reduce this "exponential growth" effect that we have in SMACX. At least I think it may work like this. When version 0.4 is completed, tests will show.
Quote

The problem is that you're increasing the "exponential growth" effect most at the beginning, where it's weakest, and less in the later game as it gets stronger.

Quote
But with cheaper facility, by the time this higher tech for mindworms is researched, all of a faction bases may have it. On the other hand, such morale bonus would be equally available to all factions.

It would still push toward more native aggression.

Quote
One can think of making some offset to this. There is at least one way I think of right now. In combat rules it can be adjusted offense:defense ratio. Even separately for land, sea and air!

Except that mindworms will use that both attacking and defending.  And it will have effects on later-game things.

Quote
That's true, and I was thinking about enhancing bases defensive rating.

Careful, as that doesn't help formers out in the field.

Quote
And when colony pods are expensive, players, AI too, I think, would manufacture more defensive units.
Quote

It would still push things more toward military and away from a builder style.

Quote
Yes, but 2 things are in plans:
- Air Power made more distant in tech tree.
- Air power offensive strategies make somewhat weaker, for example by making AAA easier to get, etc.

Yes, that would help.  I would propose making AAA and air superiority easier to get, plus making choppers not get a movement boost from reactor.

Quote
Multiplayer tests would be needed. I cannot know, how other human players would think, but with less opportunity to grow so fast and spread many bases, players may pay more attention to defense. And not defense by offense, but actually guarding their territory.

Could be.  It would still change the game style to a more military-focused one.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 12, 2013, 10:58:06 PM
You can set base tile yield with negative values. Then any bonuses (e.g. energy +5) will bring no energy, if this negative is let's say -10. Rec tank would bring it back, e.g. +10 or +11. Then you get +5 working again.

Yes, that's true. What works is giving "one and only one" bonus for HQ facility of negative upkeep. E.g. -30. It works like actually giving a player 30 EC each turn. So a player can have several bases before this maintenance cost hits him/her.

I was thinking of making formers cheaper and also work faster. In vanila, this is really micromanagement to have many formers to do terraforming fast. In this case, formers would be easier to replace, and a player would not need so many of them actually. I tried it already and what I noticed, AI benefited greatly, as terrain was well developed for all population that was in bases. I think SMAC creators had that at some point and AI was made to play like this, but then for some reason, maybe terraforming costs were made higher. But AI was not adjusted. And thus in vanila AI has too few formers.

Multiplayer facilities. This good idea. What I tried for now, is doing high cost with energy multiplication. It is relatively easy for human player, but AI will not do it right. Or at least I haven't found good balance, because AI builds them at wrong time. E.g. I make 'Quantum Lab' costing 55 EC to maintain. You would not build it before your EC increase from Quantum Lab is sufficient to cover that cost, but AI doesn't seem to understand it well. But maybe there is a good balance of facility cost and maintenance to have it working.
With mineral and lab points multiplication I think of doing something else. To bring them earlier in the tech tree. Maybe making less expensive to build. Then, you decrease this bad 'exponential effect' in early game, as you mentioned, and in late game it is smaller because of this. You just already have it working when late game comes. And with slower research rate for the whole game, late game research rate is so several times slower too.

You mean, that with Biology Lab easier to get, e.g. Gaians will have more easy to fight with mindworms?

When playing civ4, I noticed, that good city defenses slow aggressive play considerably. Making defenses easier to get could stop momentum player. Playtesting will tell.

At this time I put "drones rule" at 31, so all rules are enabled. I tested it in the game beginning so far, so no late game observations yet. If this is a way of forcing a player to assign more enrgy to psych, then it would work well. In vanila some players were never assigning any energy to it! Just they never needed it and they could win the game this way. Just neglected game feature. But this is because of strategies of base spamming working so well.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 12, 2013, 11:27:50 PM
You can set base tile yield with negative values. Then any bonuses (e.g. energy +5) will bring no energy, if this negative is let's say -10. Rec tank would bring it back, e.g. +10 or +11. Then you get +5 working again.

The question is: Do you actually lose energy for working that square, in such case?

Quote
Yes, that's true. What works is giving "one and only one" bonus for HQ facility of negative upkeep. E.g. -30. It works like actually giving a player 30 EC each turn. So a player can have several bases before this maintenance cost hits him/her.

That could work...it's not a particularly elegant approach, but it is workable.

Quote
I was thinking of making formers cheaper and also work faster.

I thought you were against high exponential growth.  Easy terraforming allows for some serious boosting via raising land and so on.

Quote
Multiplayer facilities. This good idea.

Earthmichael (our resident expert) has a theory that multiplier facilities alone are sufficient to make ICS not the best option.

Quote
What I tried for now, is doing high cost with energy multiplication. It is relatively easy for human player, but AI will not do it right. Or at least I haven't found good balance, because AI builds them at wrong time. E.g. I make 'Quantum Lab' costing 55 EC to maintain. You would not build it before your EC increase from Quantum Lab is sufficient to cover that cost, but AI doesn't seem to understand it well.

Kyrub's the expert.

Though with such amazingly high costs, it'll be difficult to support a lot of facilities in one base anyway when not running a high-economy social engineering setting.  55 EC is a fairly sizable amount for one facility in one base.

Quote
With mineral and lab points multiplication I think of doing something else. To bring them earlier in the tech tree. Maybe making less expensive to build. Then, you decrease this bad 'exponential effect' in early game, as you mentioned, and in late game it is smaller because of this. You just already have it working when late game comes. And with slower research rate for the whole game, late game research rate is so several times slower too.

Keep in mind, many facilities multiply more than one thing.

Quote
You mean, that with Biology Lab easier to get, e.g. Gaians will have more easy to fight with mindworms?

Yeah, and others will have more need to defend against it.

Quote
When playing civ4, I noticed, that good city defenses slow aggressive play considerably. Making defenses easier to get could stop momentum player. Playtesting will tell.

Yeah.  It's certainly an approach.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 13, 2013, 12:18:57 AM
You do not loose energy from such base tile. That's the thing - you just cannot get plus energy, but negatives do not take it away. And that is good, cause it allows for such tricks.

You see on F3 screen --30, not elegant but working. And AI doesn't care for esthetics... :)

I am against exponential growth. That's the only thing: terrain level change is made more expensive, for now from 12 to 24 turns! And while other actions are 2 or 3 turns mostly. This makes raise terrain "less attractive" when you can do a lot of terrain terraforming with few formers, you are less eager to have them 10 times more to do it in the same number of turns. Manufacturing 10 formers instead of 1 is one cost, the other is 10 more minerals of upkeep, roughly speaking. And game does it too cheaply, the cheapest I saw was 4 EC. But I will have to actually see it in action, if such cost of 24 turns is reasonable. On the other hand, I would not like to have raising/lowering terrain disabled.

I have seen some good playing without ICS, as you say. But this is not only about ICS in classical notion. You could also spam bases that have all 20 tiles not covering other cities radii. I agree, that multiplication is powerfull. Problem is, as I remember, much due to ease of getting new colony pods, also bonuses of small bases. E.g. you build Human Genome, Planetary Transit and you do not worry about drones, also can have many small bases without facilities bringing good yield fast. Builders as oposed to momentum players, need more turns to setup their faction. ICS problem is also about benefits of the base tile, that needs no population! It is worked just cause a base is there. You can make all pop doctors and this tile is worked for free. Often base tile is better than terraformed terrain, e.g. you have high economy rating and get many +energy from base tile. That's the issue, so making a player to pay for this fruitful tile is anti-ICS.

Quantum Lab is late game facility. Other energy multiplication get lower costs. I am not sure 55 is appropriate, but it is for now tested.
I also changed other things too: hurrying costs 2 times. And possibly think of getting it even higher. This acts much against exponential growth.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 13, 2013, 03:37:45 AM
You do not loose energy from such base tile. That's the thing - you just cannot get plus energy, but negatives do not take it away. And that is good, cause it allows for such tricks.

Nice to know.

Quote
I am against exponential growth.

Eliminating exponential growth entirely could be problematic...essentially it means making it so that your ability to grow isn't fueled by what you currently have...

Quote
That's the only thing: terrain level change is made more expensive, for now from 12 to 24 turns! And while other actions are 2 or 3 turns mostly. This makes raise terrain "less attractive" when you can do a lot of terrain terraforming with few formers, you are less eager to have them 10 times more to do it in the same number of turns. Manufacturing 10 formers instead of 1 is one cost, the other is 10 more minerals of upkeep, roughly speaking. And game does it too cheaply, the cheapest I saw was 4 EC. But I will have to actually see it in action, if such cost of 24 turns is reasonable. On the other hand, I would not like to have raising/lowering terrain disabled.

In that case, you'll probably see a lot of forests; the resulting high minerals and low energy will probably further force a very militaristic focus.  Make sure to playtest things a lot, as I don't think the results will be what you expect...

Quote
E.g. you build Human Genome, Planetary Transit and you do not worry about drones, also can have many small bases without facilities bringing good yield fast.

But not as large a yield due to the lack of multipliers...also, getting both of those projects may take some doing in MP (and in SP, people can do whatever they find most fun.)

Quote
Builders as oposed to momentum players, need more turns to setup their faction.

Which is more anti-builder than anti-ICS.

Quote
ICS problem is also about benefits of the base tile, that needs no population!

This is the real source of the problem, I think; all the anti-ICS factors are probably enough to cancel it, but if there is an ICS problem, that's why.

Quote
It is worked just cause a base is there. You can make all pop doctors and this tile is worked for free. Often base tile is better than terraformed terrain, e.g. you have high economy rating and get many +energy from base tile.

Actually, a high economy rating is one case where ICS probably isn't such a problem, as the main benefit of +3 or higher economy is the commerce bonus, which actually benefits from having roughly as many bases as your trading partners; furthermore, energy is very much affected by multiplier facilities that ICS usually doesn't have.

Quote
Quantum Lab is late game facility. Other energy multiplication get lower costs. I am not sure 55 is appropriate, but it is for now tested.
I also changed other things too: hurrying costs 2 times. And possibly think of getting it even higher. This acts much against exponential growth.

I think you might be going too extreme...but if you're testing it, then you might as well just see what happens and decide if you like it.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 14, 2013, 07:07:37 PM
And back to the drawing board, with Life Support. Probably I noticed that few years back, as I now recall... When I had built too many facilities and my income got to -11, I soon got one of the Life Support facilities disassambled. Unfortunatelly, population did not decrease from 3 to 1. So a player can potentially build it for pop growth and then for the time of keeping it steady, destroy it saving each turn its high upkeep cost.
It will not work.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 15, 2013, 12:22:54 AM
And back to the drawing board, with Life Support. Probably I noticed that few years back, as I now recall... When I had built too many facilities and my income got to -11, I soon got one of the Life Support facilities disassambled. Unfortunatelly, population did not decrease from 3 to 1. So a player can potentially build it for pop growth and then for the time of keeping it steady, destroy it saving each turn its high upkeep cost.
It will not work.

What you really want, I think, is to make the cost of a colony pod increase with the number of bases+colony pods you own.  (Probably some constant plus some amount proportional to the number of bases+pods.)  Which is not possible currently, but when I start taking requests it is definitely a viable possibility.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 15, 2013, 06:17:58 AM
I had also another idea, that would make maintenance cost dependent on population size, but it is not possible to give "regular" citizens, workers, talents and drones, the effects in lab, economy and psych, the same as other specialists. Then it would very closely mimic civ4. Let's say talents and workers would cost -1 economy, but drones -2. One could even think of disabling somehow drone riots, since a player would pay for drones more than for workers and talents. Closely to what's in civ4, where unhappy citizens do not work, but there are no riots stopping all city production, science, food production. But I tried to add to workers effects like for specialists and it did not work. 
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Geo on December 15, 2013, 12:34:53 PM
Mart, how about just placing a -3 growth at one of the 4 basic SE tabs? It would be a hard barrier to cross for most factions until they put up a facility giving + growth, or certain techs are researched offering + growth when SE is changed then.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 15, 2013, 04:39:36 PM
I had also another idea, that would make maintenance cost dependent on population size, but it is not possible to give "regular" citizens, workers, talents and drones, the effects in lab, economy and psych, the same as other specialists. Then it would very closely mimic civ4. Let's say talents and workers would cost -1 economy, but drones -2. One could even think of disabling somehow drone riots, since a player would pay for drones more than for workers and talents. Closely to what's in civ4, where unhappy citizens do not work, but there are no riots stopping all city production, science, food production. But I tried to add to workers effects like for specialists and it did not work.

I would not advise adding it like for specialists, since then it would be multiplied by multiplier facilities.

In any case, having maintenance per population is an interesting idea, but the result would end up being crippling in the early game and fairly trivial in the late game (where you get a lot of resources per citizen anyway).

I think what you might want is to have the maintenance per population increase with your population.

Mart, how about just placing a -3 growth at one of the 4 basic SE tabs? It would be a hard barrier to cross for most factions until they put up a facility giving + growth, or certain techs are researched offering + growth when SE is changed then.

Actually, I think -3 growth stops all growth, so it'd essentially mean everyone except Yang and Maar is unable to grow until they get Planetary Networks or Ethical Calculus.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Geo on December 15, 2013, 05:04:39 PM
Mart, how about just placing a -3 growth at one of the 4 basic SE tabs? It would be a hard barrier to cross for most factions until they put up a facility giving + growth, or certain techs are researched offering + growth when SE is changed then.

Actually, I think -3 growth stops all growth, so it'd essentially mean everyone except Yang and Maar is unable to grow until they get Planetary Networks or Ethical Calculus.

Yes, that's the idea. A mostly hardcap to exceeding size 1 bases (at least, for most factions), no tinkering with maintenance costs, and not losing an important popcap facility from the beginning.
Just go the right tech(s), pick the right SE setting(s), and you're free of bonds.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 15, 2013, 07:47:13 PM
Growth penalty is faction-wide. An interesting idea for some story plots. Base-based penalty can be available throughout all game, when it is not cancelled by a tech. High colony pod mineral cost already slows down base spawning. Maybe this is mostly enough. To get a new base to make another colony pod in reasonable amount of turns, one needs to make it productive by growing it - getting more population. I intend to make crawlers very expensive. I think playing with facilities costs can give some decent results.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kilkakon on December 16, 2013, 01:42:37 AM
Just a quick note: in my LE game, I give Grav Struts for free on Colony Pods and Workers. These give the extra move yet retaining the classic appearance if that is what you want. :D

It's still a challenge though, trying to defeat ICS. Good luck on trying to make the game more realistic.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Mart on December 16, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
Yes, although with pre-defined units, such capabilities can be reverse-engineered. This can be blocked by introducing more abilities than 2, so that antigrav struts are not available to other units in workshop. I gave colony pods more move points by chassis properties - infantry has 2. It has its drawbacks - infantry is "hardcoded" in the game as chassis with 1 move point. This way infantry chassis gets mobile description. I placed some remedies, they are not pretty, but it is a question of getting used to. On the other hand, one can think of infantry as beeing mechanized, like in civ series. Colony pods with 2 move points are rather sufficient. On roads they often move enough tiles to establish a base right away.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kilkakon on December 23, 2013, 12:59:51 AM
Fortunately with Grav-Struts they stay as Infantry as far as those bonuses are concerned. :)

And yeah I had basic costs in my game so high (as everything was predesigned) that workshop was completely useless.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 23, 2013, 02:28:19 AM
Fortunately with Grav-Struts they stay as Infantry as far as those bonuses are concerned. :)

And yeah I had basic costs in my game so high (as everything was predesigned) that workshop was completely useless.

Easier way to make workshop useless (which I seem to remember you also did) is set everything's prerequisite to "disable".
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kilkakon on December 23, 2013, 02:30:05 AM
Yeah I used to do that until BU told me it would be better to make it useless than make the game crash.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Buster's Uncle on December 23, 2013, 02:44:25 AM
I did?

-Makes sense, though.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 23, 2013, 03:55:02 AM
Yeah I used to do that until BU told me it would be better to make it useless than make the game crash.

Wait, the game crashes if you set all the non-premade units to "disable"?
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kilkakon on December 23, 2013, 04:09:02 AM
Yep. The datalinks become crash to desktop buttons. :O Doing anything in the workshop except closing it crashed the game too.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 23, 2013, 04:59:38 AM
Yep. The datalinks become crash to desktop buttons. :O Doing anything in the workshop except closing it crashed the game too.

I can probably fix those, although it's a rare enough situation that it's not making the short list.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Kilkakon on December 23, 2013, 05:01:54 AM
Yeah I am guessing they are divide by zero errors or something probably.
Title: Re: [UMOD] Redesigning technology tree
Post by: Yitzi on December 23, 2013, 03:57:51 PM
Yeah I am guessing they are divide by zero errors or something probably.

More likely segfaults.
Templates: 1: Printpage (default).
Sub templates: 4: init, print_above, main, print_below.
Language files: 4: index+Modifications.english (default), TopicRating/.english (default), PortaMx/PortaMx.english (default), OharaYTEmbed.english (default).
Style sheets: 0: .
Files included: 31 - 840KB. (show)
Queries used: 14.

[Show Queries]