I don't think the tech system makes too much sense...

[Karl von Eisen]

Tech gets more expensive as you gain more of it because it represents the greater complexity later technology has compared to earlier technology. For instance, a computer costs more to build than a flint arrow might, to use an extreme example. So when a nation with a tech level of 50 sends that 50 tech to a nation with 6000 tech, it shouldn't actually make any difference to the more advanced nation's tech level. It doesn't matter how much research on flintknapping you send, it still won't be any new information to them.

I was thinking that maybe tech just represents amount of technology, but I think that'd be included in infrastructure. The description indicates it means level of technology, as well. Wouldn't it make more sense to have a system of research, instead? You can send any nation any research, but if they've already got it it won't make a difference.

This could even be represented by the current system, except without the ability for lower tech-level nations to send to higher tech-level nations and without sending research actually reducing the sending nation's level of research. There could just be a fee, say, so people don't abuse it - the more advanced the tech, the more it costs to send over (because the more advanced it is the more tools, knowledge, education, etc. you need to make use of it).

I don't know, just an idea. What do y'all think?

Edited May 4, 2008 by Karl von Eisen

[ugexe]

Needless overcomplications if you ask me. KISS

[General Witz]

I agree with both 1st and 2nd posts. Makes little sense that "tech dealing" would (or should) happen in such a way (i.e. smaller, technologically backward countries selling tech to big countries to make them 'smarter' and more advanced)

But it's also a simple and economically useful way to do this in this game :-/

Edited May 5, 2008 by Ivegottheskill

[Amnesiasoft]

Wouldn't just not letting you send tech to nations with more tech than you be an easier solution than what you propose? Not that it would ever happen because people are so adamant about leaving tech dealing in the game. Though I personally feel it should be killed, but that's just me.

[Syzygy]

The admin said some time in the past that "tech" means just the AMOUNT of technology a nation has [computers, cellphones, networks whatever], not the overall quality.

I agree that the current system will long term lead to another major problem: Nations having more tech than infra. And since tech costs no upkeep, there is not reason ever to stop importing it. In addition, there are by far more ways to destroy infra than there are to destroy tech. We will see nations with 10,000tech going to ZI but still being in nuclear range which is leading to a situation like we had it some month ago when tech was worth 20 NS.

What this game needs is:

1. tech should directly influence the damage caps, so high-level nations simply deal more damage to each other (reducing inflation at the top ranks, giving low and mid-tier nations better chances to catch up in the ranks). Possible solution: every 1,000tech you get a +10% damage bonus for all attacks you launch because your weaponry is just 'better'.

2. tech could "expire" at some date (because its too old to be compatible any more with the new technologies or it simply 'breaks' at some point - since you pay not upkeep for it, it is not maintained and repaired frequently). Possible solution: every nation loses 1% or 0.5% of its overall techlevel per day due to expiration. So, if a nation just does 'nothing', after 100days it would have lost ~40% of its tech. After 200days already ~65% of its tech and after a year around 85% of its technology. Another way to stop "old" nations to eternally stay at the top and newcomers unable to EVER catch them if they just keep importing enough tech. New improvements/wonders (hear hear!) could slow down the expiration rate, bad events speed it up.

3. the resources which right now lowers tech costs are more or less useless, even techsellers would be better off by importing other stuff because the more-tax outweights the savings when purchasing tech by far. These resources now slow down tech expiration (Gold: -10%, Microchips: -20%), so if you import Gold/Microchips the rate of expiration would be decreased significantly: a new MARKET would be created, and by that a DEMAND for these right now pretty weak resources: Lead, Oil, Gold (+Microchips at all). Nations with VERY high techlevels (5000+) would WANT these resources to keep their benefits from tech.

After all a great way for the game to counter the inflation SIGNIFICANTLY.

Edited May 5, 2008 by (DAC)Syzygy

[enderland]

What this game needs is:

1. tech should directly influence the damage caps, so high-level nations simply deal more damage to each other (reducing inflation at the top ranks, giving low and mid-tier nations better chances to catch up in the ranks). Possible solution: every 1,000tech you get a +10% damage bonus for all attacks you launch because your weaponry is just 'better'

This is a really good suggestion.

[Karl von Eisen]

Thanks for the responses!

I agree with both 1st and 2nd posts. Makes little sense that "tech dealing" would (or should) happen in such a way (i.e. smaller, technologically backward countries selling tech to big countries to make them 'smarter' and more advanced)

But it's also a simple and economically useful way to do this in this game :-/

Yeah, as someone who benefits from tech trading I can't say I dislike it too much. It just doesn't make sense to me, and I like games to do that (make sense).

Wouldn't just not letting you send tech to nations with more tech than you be an easier solution than what you propose? Not that it would ever happen because people are so adamant about leaving tech dealing in the game. Though I personally feel it should be killed, but that's just me.

That's basically what I proposed. Except I added a few things because, again, it didn't make sense that telling someone what you know means you no longer know it... but that is getting kind of complicated.

The admin said some time in the past that "tech" means just the AMOUNT of technology a nation has [computers, cellphones, networks whatever], not the overall quality.

I considered that, but that doesn't exactly work considered how the game is set up. The pictures, for instance, indicates level of technology, as does the description in the "Cyber Nations Information Index," and it doesn't make sense that a nation would need lots of cell phones to be nuke- or university- or aircraft-capable. Plus, I think amount of tech is represented by infrastructure.

I agree that the current system will long term lead to another major problem: Nations having more tech than infra. And since tech costs no upkeep, there is not reason ever to stop importing it. In addition, there are by far more ways to destroy infra than there are to destroy tech. We will see nations with 10,000tech going to ZI but still being in nuclear range which is leading to a situation like we had it some month ago when tech was worth 20 NS.

I don't know enough to really comment on this, but what you say seems reasonable. It's odd that tech has no upkeep cost, since I'm sure that especially if tech represents amount then a bunch of cell phones and computers would run up quite an electricity bill!

Edited May 6, 2008 by Karl von Eisen

[SynthFG]

Tech dealing is the equivalent of outsourcing your technology manufacturing process to a 3rd world country,

Giving tech an upkeep cost is a good idea, if there was an equivalent reduction in infra upkeep so that an nation with ideal ratio's doesn't loose out.

as is allowing tech to increase battle damage

Not so sure about expiry, think an upkeep/upgrade cost would be better,

Also agree that the tech resources / bonus resources should include modifiers for reducing tech upkeep, this would make them much more attractive

[enderland]

I agree that the current system will long term lead to another major problem: Nations having more tech than infra. And since tech costs no upkeep, there is not reason ever to stop importing it. In addition, there are by far more ways to destroy infra than there are to destroy tech. We will see nations with 10,000tech going to ZI but still being in nuclear range which is leading to a situation like we had it some month ago when tech was worth 20 NS.

Btw, to ZI a nation with 12,000 infra, it will take an unbelievable amount of time:

Assuming nukes are NOT used:

40 defeat alert

45 CMs (7.5 x 6)

120 bombing runs

205 Infra damage a day. So that means that it will take just under two months to ZI someone (59 days, assuming max damage ALWAYS happens from all attacks).

Adding in nukes it lowers it to

40 defeat alert

45 CMs (7.5 x 6)

120 bombing runs

150 Nuke

355 Infra damage a day, or 34 days. That is with taking a NUKE A DAY for over a month straight too...

Edited May 6, 2008 by alden peterson

[Syzygy]

well if you count in that it takes around a year to build such a nation with VERY good gameplay, i think thats pretty fair. I am absolutely no fan of a year of work being destroyed in a 2 weeks war.

But, thats not the main point of my suggestion above:

1. nukes are no real deterrent any more, attackers just threaten the opponent with "perma ZI" if he uses them and even then the damage caused can be repaired shortly. An increased destruction potential by techlevel would reduce the amounts of 'curbstomps' we currently see, because even the defender could at least make sure to cause horrible damage to the attackers on his way down, so if they "perma ZI" him and basically destroy a year of his work, they suffer at least 3 months of their own.

2. higher destructions in the upper tier make sure rebuilding nations or guys who started a year later can "catch up", while right now nobody could ever catch the top10 nations if they just keep importing tech. you simply cannot overcome the time-advance they have, because nowadays almost everyone in these ranks simply hardcore stockpiles tech.

3. War would become "costly" again, not like recently seen an "alliance wide tech/land-raid". So people would not get political AND financial benefits from war, but EITHER political advances (making war = removing opponents) OR financial advances (using diplomcay = saving damage, outgrow the opponent).

[Lord Vice]

Its just like paying the indians to do the more manual labor of producing/programming for westerners technology. We do it in real life.

[meyer]

Doesn't this belong in suggestions?

[Karl von Eisen]

Tech dealing is the equivalent of outsourcing your technology manufacturing process to a 3rd world country

Its just like paying the indians to do the more manual labor of producing/programming for westerners technology. We do it in real life.

Brilliant! That's really still under the category of infrastructure, though... even if you say they're just developing your new technology for you, the fact that them giving you tech takes away their tech is a good indicator that it should be considered infrastructure - it's obviously manufacturing ability and material.

well if you count in that it takes around a year to build such a nation with VERY good gameplay, i think thats pretty fair. I am absolutely no fan of a year of work being destroyed in a 2 weeks war.

That's true and a good point, but the idea that a nuke a day is still not much damage is pretty unbalanced...

Doesn't this belong in suggestions?

No, I wanted to discuss ideas about this; I don't really have any suggestions that I think should be put into action, especially as tech selling is such a big part of the economy.

Edited May 6, 2008 by Karl von Eisen

[staxringold]

Tech dealing is the equivalent of outsourcing your technology manufacturing process to a 3rd world country,

Giving tech an upkeep cost is a good idea, if there was an equivalent reduction in infra upkeep so that an nation with ideal ratio's doesn't loose out.

as is allowing tech to increase battle damage

This is what I always thought, you were outsourcing your production.

[Guido]

Those first two suggestions are just ways to let younger nations catch up to older ones...which isn't necessary. The older nations have been playing the game longer, you won't ever catch them..get over it.

But as to your 3rd suggestion, what if instead of decreasing the expiration rate, it simply upped the amount that either A) you could import (tech i mean) or B) if a nation sent you 50 tech, it would turn out to be 60 tech on your end because of those gold and microchip modifiers.

The really large nations that aren't trying to build infra as much anymore would benefit from being able to get more tech.

Also imo, tech should directly effect battle odds, but thats just me.

[Max Beck]

I think you should use this forum for these kinds of discussions please.

[Azaghul]

While it doesn't make a lot of sense, it improves game play by creating an effective "tech industry", and so should stay the way it is.

I don't like the idea of tech decreasing over time, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for tech to have upkeep costs.

[Max Beck]

There's a "tech industry" in the real world too. Look at all the cellphones made in China for example. Cheap labour, really. So teach-deals are good, and should not be removed, since they are just like RL.

[Viluin]

An upkeep cost for tech? Wouldn't that smack some of the large nations that currently have huge tech stockpiles right in the balls?

Edited May 8, 2008 by Viluin

[Voxamerica]

The current system, while possibly imperfect, does follow the KISS formula and allows for a mutually-beneficial trade between larger & smaller nations.

And, you could make a reasonable RL-based argument against either tech cost increases or any maintenance costs. True, in RL, an increase in a society's technology involves a signficant investment in R&D and such and maintenance of all the gimmickry that goes with it is expensive (e.g. building and repairing cell phone towers). However, eventually, as new technological devices become produced in quantity, unit costs go down dramatically.

Just one example: in the late 1970's, when microwave ovens first became available, my father bought one. The first microwaves were mammoth devices and it took my dad and me both to bring it up the stairs into the house. It also cost somewhere around $400. Today, a much better microwave, which any child could easily pick up and carry around, would now cost maybe $50 or so. A similar example would be the $2000 computer I bought in 1995. I bought my son a computer that is 100 times better in January for less than $300.

So, while there is an tremendous cost in gaining new technology, it levels out over time.

[enderland]

Also imo, tech should directly effect battle odds, but thats just me.

Considering its relative Nation Strength value, yes, it should.

[Syzygy]

The current system, while possibly imperfect, does follow the KISS formula and allows for a mutually-beneficial trade between larger & smaller nations.

And, you could make a reasonable RL-based argument against either tech cost increases or any maintenance costs. True, in RL, an increase in a society's technology involves a signficant investment in R&D and such and maintenance of all the gimmickry that goes with it is expensive (e.g. building and repairing cell phone towers). However, eventually, as new technological devices become produced in quantity, unit costs go down dramatically.

Just one example: in the late 1970's, when microwave ovens first became available, my father bought one. The first microwaves were mammoth devices and it took my dad and me both to bring it up the stairs into the house. It also cost somewhere around $400. Today, a much better microwave, which any child could easily pick up and carry around, would now cost maybe $50 or so. A similar example would be the $2000 computer I bought in 1995. I bought my son a computer that is 100 times better in January for less than $300.

So, while there is an tremendous cost in gaining new technology, it levels out over time.

indeed, but you will agree that 20-30years later your old microwave oven or your $2,000 computer has reached a real value of $0 because it is totally unusuable then due to incompabilities to the systems invented/established in the meantime, or new standards for power connectors, security/quality seals/laws etc... - that would speak for letting tech 'expire' over time, just because it is simply 'outdated' and 'unusuable' after some time = worth nothing, you can only throw it away.

That would also greatly fight tech-inflation AND keep the techbusiness running

[Syzygy]

Also imo, tech should directly effect battle odds, but thats just me.

tech does that. but the influence is rather low. You need a REALLY BIG advantage over your enemy to notice a useful impact. An advantage you will hardly find during battles in the game.

I think that can stay unchanged, but tech should simply increase the damage-caps for your attacks. Seriously, it is only logical that the US can build probably a LOT more advanced Cruise Missiles or Nukes than North Korea can, so where is the problem if a 100tech nation does 150 nuke damage (standard), while a 1,100tech nation does 165 (+10%) and a 5,100tech nation does 225 (+50%)?

Currently, a 50k NS nation with the same infra amount like a 100k NS nation have closely the same firepower - but they shouldnt have. If the 100k NS nation has a significant advance in technology, it should simply hit harder. Laser Guided Clusterbombs simply pwn 30year old russian tanks.

[Lord Emares]

2. tech could "expire" at some date (because its too old to be compatible any more with the new technologies or it simply 'breaks' at some point - since you pay not upkeep for it, it is not maintained and repaired frequently). Possible solution: every nation loses 1% or 0.5% of its overall techlevel per day due to expiration. So, if a nation just does 'nothing', after 100days it would have lost ~40% of its tech. After 200days already ~65% of its tech and after a year around 85% of its technology. Another way to stop "old" nations to eternally stay at the top and newcomers unable to EVER catch them if they just keep importing enough tech. New improvements/wonders (hear hear!) could slow down the expiration rate, bad events speed it up.

One problem with this is that it introduces an artificial tech barrier that one can never cross and that every nation above that barrier is brought down to.

For example 3500 tech nation

over 10 days they lose 1% of their tech every day

Tech @ End of Day 1: 3465

Tech @ End Day 2: 3430.35

Tech @ End Day 3: 3396.0465

Tech @ End Day 4: 3362.0860

Tech @ End Day 5: 3328.4652

Tech @ End Day 6: 3295.1805

Tech @ End Day 7: 3262.2287

Tech @ End Day 8: 3229.6064

Tech @ End Day 9: 3197.3104

Tech @ End Day 10: 3165.3373

Thats a total loss of 334.6627 tech over 10 days. The absolute most any nation can import in 10 days is 300 tech, and thats assuming they don't send any money out.

This effectively kills tech in the game as eventually every nation will be at the same level unless they mass buy tech in game, which would destroy their money reserves...eventually making it not worth it to buy over the barrier...

Edited May 9, 2008 by Lord Emares

[Guido]

tech does that. but the influence is rather low. You need a REALLY BIG advantage over your enemy to notice a useful impact. An advantage you will hardly find during battles in the game.

I think that can stay unchanged, but tech should simply increase the damage-caps for your attacks. Seriously, it is only logical that the US can build probably a LOT more advanced Cruise Missiles or Nukes than North Korea can, so where is the problem if a 100tech nation does 150 nuke damage (standard), while a 1,100tech nation does 165 (+10%) and a 5,100tech nation does 225 (+50%)?

Currently, a 50k NS nation with the same infra amount like a 100k NS nation have closely the same firepower - but they shouldnt have. If the 100k NS nation has a significant advance in technology, it should simply hit harder. Laser Guided Clusterbombs simply pwn 30year old russian tanks.

Tech doesn't directly effect battle odds, it simply makes your soldiers kill more of the enemy when you battle each other, IIRC.

And as to your 3rd paragraph, this isn't true. A nation with 10k infra and 1k tech compared to a 10k infra and 5k tech nation will have a terribly hard time trying to anarchy him. The tech heavy nation when attacked will kill many more soldiers than the attacking nation and will hardly ever be within range to be anarchied.

I'm not sure if i agree with raising the damage caps. I just think that tech should directly effect your odds of winning battles as well as having the effect of killing more men like it does now. This way people will still want tech because winning battles is what war is all about.