Technology and Tech Interface

[Aragos]

--a tech tree. Yeah, I know it has been overdone, et al. It is a good visual tool to show how getting Tech 1 leads to Tech 2, and so on.
--ability to shift funding/resources within tech development. Example: I want the A-bomb fast. I put all my resources into developing it and get my first nuke in mid-1944. However, I'm stuck with 1936 tech heavy bombers, as I didnt allocate funds/resources toward heavy bomber development. Ooopies.

--Weapon system specific technology. Example: I want a new medium tank (M4 Sherman). I get to develop several different techs for it--76mm gun tech (up from 50mm or 37mm tech), drive train/suspension tech, and engine tech. Same for aircraft (allowing for different models. Example: Spitfire I gets upgraded engine and gun tech, becomes Spit II, and so on). Have multiple levels (Tank Gun Tech Levels I (20mm) to X (122mm)). A PzI, for example, could have Gun Tech I (20mm), Engine Tech II (speed increase over I) and Suspension Tech I (range/fuel consumption). To be REALLY cool, have the techs "weigh" more-- A Gun Tech I/Engine Tech I/Sus Tech I tank would literally weigh less than a 5/5/5 level tank (this would address light tanks being used for amphib or airborne ops--they are 'light' enough to use). The result would be a more advanced tank/plane but with higher supply and fuel consumption rates.

--Upgradeable ship technology. The US didn't build a new USS Nevada--it upgraded AA guns, radar, etc. to it over the course of the war. Allow techs that will increase specific ship type advantages (ex: Submarine Radar level V tech--five times better radar on a sub than level I?)

overall, have a lot of player choice involved with technology and how it is used vs. opening up new designs based on tech advancements (unless you have a LOT of tech advancements and unit types, e.g. "advanced Merlin engine" gives you the Spit X and P-51D).

[Fistalis]

--ability to shift funding/resources within tech development. Example: I want the A-bomb fast. I put all my resources into developing it and get my first nuke in mid-1944. However, I'm stuck with 1936 tech heavy bombers, as I didnt allocate funds/resources toward heavy bomber development. Ooopies.

I'd like to be able to use mutiple research centers to research the same tech, Giving faster research of that tech but at a reduced rate of return for the additional research centers.

[Chesehead]

I think a Tech tree would prove to be helpful, especially for modders, since its a bit hard to follow tech progressions.

The best bet for indivual techs forming a unit tech (I.E 3in AA gun for a battleship) couldbe done on either a indiviual country (Looking up what actually went onto their stuff), or generlize it, (3in AA gun becomes medium AA weapons).

[Snowpig]

--a tech tree. Yeah, I know it has been overdone, et al. It is a good visual tool to show how getting Tech 1 leads to Tech 2, and so on.
--ability to shift funding/resources within tech development. Example: I want the A-bomb fast. I put all my resources into developing it and get my first nuke in mid-1944. However, I'm stuck with 1936 tech heavy bombers, as I didnt allocate funds/resources toward heavy bomber development. Ooopies.

--Weapon system specific technology. Example: I want a new medium tank (M4 Sherman). I get to develop several different techs for it--76mm gun tech (up from 50mm or 37mm tech), drive train/suspension tech, and engine tech. Same for aircraft (allowing for different models. Example: Spitfire I gets upgraded engine and gun tech, becomes Spit II, and so on). Have multiple levels (Tank Gun Tech Levels I (20mm) to X (122mm)). A PzI, for example, could have Gun Tech I (20mm), Engine Tech II (speed increase over I) and Suspension Tech I (range/fuel consumption). To be REALLY cool, have the techs "weigh" more-- A Gun Tech I/Engine Tech I/Sus Tech I tank would literally weigh less than a 5/5/5 level tank (this would address light tanks being used for amphib or airborne ops--they are 'light' enough to use). The result would be a more advanced tank/plane but with higher supply and fuel consumption rates.

--Upgradeable ship technology. The US didn't build a new USS Nevada--it upgraded AA guns, radar, etc. to it over the course of the war. Allow techs that will increase specific ship type advantages (ex: Submarine Radar level V tech--five times better radar on a sub than level I?)

overall, have a lot of player choice involved with technology and how it is used vs. opening up new designs based on tech advancements (unless you have a LOT of tech advancements and unit types, e.g. "advanced Merlin engine" gives you the Spit X and P-51D).

that would be an almost complete copy of the HoI3 - tech system.

[Aragos]

Well, sort of. I like some of HOI3's concepts (unit organization) but the tech is way to general, as are units. With a mix of the current SR system (get tech X and it allows unit Y) with the HOI3 system (get tech X and you get a generic unit upgrade). Personally, the best would be if you could do incrimental tech dev to each unit type--P36 to P40 (all models one at a time), with different tech dev toward P47s, P51s, etc. In other words, a small tech tree for each unit design.

Ships need to be upgraded somehow. Historical fact on the upgrading of ships throughout the war.

[makotech222]

I agree with the tech tree, and in addition, it should be possible to queue up to a specific tech by clicking on it, akin to Civ4. If i click on a tech in the future ages, it should queue up all the prereq techs to get there.

[Ruges]

The problem with a Tech Tree for the Supreme Ruler Series is the tech is not a tree. Its a Thorne bush.

Here's one that I made a few years ago for SR2020 http://home.earthlink.net/~sr2020_ruges ... tree1j.jpg Since this chart was made, twice as many techs have been added to the game. And with 1936 coming along, That will probably add another 100-500 more techs to the chart. And they are all going to be going every which way.

[Kaiser]

The problem with a Tech Tree for the Supreme Ruler Series is the tech is not a tree. Its a Thorne bush.

Here's one that I made a few years ago for SR2020 http://home.earthlink.net/~sr2020_ruges ... tree1j.jpg Since this chart was made, twice as many techs have been added to the game. And with 1936 coming along, That will probably add another 100-500 more techs to the chart. And they are all going to be going every which way.

Wow, dont realize how many techs are ingame until actually looking at it in a tree type view. You should do an updated picture with all the new techs. Is there any other similiar pictures for SRCW?

Thanks,

[Ruges]

Your more then welcome to make one for CW. You could even consider your contribution to it.

[Fistalis]

The problem with a Tech Tree for the Supreme Ruler Series is the tech is not a tree. Its a Thorne bush.

This. I've said it over and over but a tech tree really wouldnt be very helpful when you consider what it would look like with all the techs on it. Tech trees work well in games like CIV with like 30 techs.. when you consider that SRCW has something like 500 techs you realize that a tech tree isn't a solution, I suppose with era techs you could split it into multiple tech trees for each "era". But again I think that would just further complicate it. I do agree that something should be done to simplify viewing the research paths for people.. but have yet to come up with a reasonable solution.

[Legend]

We have been working on something for SR1936. Perhaps we'll get to a point where we can open it up for discussion and get feedback on it from players on the forum.

As for the other ideas... please split them up into different threads (even if you make one post to track the separate threads). That way, each item can be discussed on it's own. And this way, some ideas may not be overlooked by readers.

- Daxon

[Ruges]

We have been working on something for SR1936. Perhaps we'll get to a point where we can open it up for discussion and get feedback on it from players on the forum.

As for the other ideas... please split them up into different threads (even if you make one post to track the separate threads). That way, each item can be discussed on it's own. And this way, some ideas may not be overlooked by readers.

- Daxon

Don't gimp the tech progression for sake of a tree. Right now its more of a function thing as it should be.

[barkhauer]

Far more important than a tree, IMHO, is the ability to click on the tech I want, and to have it, and any and all unresearched pre-reqs, auto-queue in order.

[Chesehead]

I think a "Tech Bush" is more important for modders than anything else. One of the reasons I've stayed away is because its all too complicated for me without a flow chart of some sort.

[George Geczy]

With each version of Supreme Ruler we've said "OK, it's time to add a tech tree browser into the game" ... and each time we haven't managed to do so. But this time, we REALLY mean it.*

The problem, of course, is that it's very difficult to add a tech thorn bush browser in a manageable form. However, we have some ideas and will have more details in the future.

With regard to "click on tech in the future and it queue's everything", that's always a tricky bit of business. It sounds good, and in the past (SR2010?) we once allowed it, but it has the oddity that you could go waaaayyyyy into the future and queue up dozens and dozens of techs between here and there, making the tech system a bit artificial. Yes, in hindsight we know that discovery X lead to innovation Y, but that knowledge wasn't known at the start.

While it makes sense to maybe have some broad "goals" you can aim towards (atomic bomb, rocketry, guided missiles), it is harder to say that it makes sense to be able to pick "Mech Warriors" in 1936 as a tech you want to aim for.

On the other hand, if we have a tech tree browser that "hides" the path after a couple of steps into the future, players get annoyed because (at least after the first time they play) that knowledge should be there are a reference - "how do I get to guided missiles from here?"

Hmmm.

-- George.