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.

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.

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.

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.

We'll have espionage-themed DLC?

Jokes aside, I wonder which types of intelligence (and counter-intelligence, including internal security) we'll have.

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".

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.

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. 

What in the world are you two talking about?

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.