Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Have a feature request for SRU? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by SGTscuba »

Steam powered Catapults should probably unlock the Ark Royal (3). I don't think the UK has that unit at the moment judging by my current game.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Balthagor »

number47 wrote:...And how do you intend to "resolve" them? :P
In some cases, add a bonus. In others, add some units to the database. Making them a prereq to another tech is also acceptable to me. Worst case, I drop the tech.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by number47 »

Image

[b][color=#BF0000]Balthagor[/color][/b] wrote:
Kristijonas wrote:...Are there plans to add effects to some of the dead-end techs?...
Not at this time, that's a topic for another thread. For now my goal is to resolve the dead end techs.
[b][color=#BF0000]Balthagor[/color][/b] wrote:
number47 wrote:...And how do you intend to "resolve" them? :P
In some cases, add a bonus. In others, add some units to the database. Making them a prereq to another tech is also acceptable to me. Worst case, I drop the tech.
You lost me now... HUH
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
Kristijonas
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 884
Joined: Nov 11 2011
Human: Yes

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Kristijonas »

Ja, I got confused as well.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by SGTscuba »

I think he said that for any techs that don't really do anything, they will either be given units that are unlocked, or will give some perk (such as research efficiency +5%), or be taken out if nothing suitable can be done. Hence my suggestion that the Ark Royal (3), which doesn't exist in game afaik, should be added and then assigned to the steam catapults tech.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Balthagor »

I will consider adding bonuses to techs that lead nowhere. If the tech unlocks another tech, I'm not going to consider in this pass if it should have bonuses added to it.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Balthagor »

Felius wrote:Looking through the in game tech tree (and what a pain to navigate that is), one thing does jump forward: There are a number of techs that not only apparently do nothing. That is, they are not prerequisites for any other tech, they do not open any new unit designs, nor list any direct effects.

For a quite noteworthy example of this, the tech "Nuclear Supercarriers" is particularly notable, even for countries that you would think would have units with that tech, but there are more than just that one.

I'm unsure if there are already things planned about this, but since I remember things like this in 2020, I'm assuming it might be an oversight. So, these useless dead ends should probably either be made useful or pruned from the tree.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
number47
General
Posts: 2655
Joined: Sep 15 2011
Human: Yes
Location: X:913 Y:185

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by number47 »

Is it really necessary for tech "Armor Design Level VIII" to have tech "Simulator Pods" and all the non-tradable Air production techs in that line as pre-requisite? I tried playing Ireland (in SW sandbox but probably in all modern sandboxes is the same) and found out if I wanted to research some of the "modern" (1985-1995) inf units (or by modern designs), I had to spend around 5 years (1980 days to be exact) researching non-tradable airforce production techs |O |O |O
"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."
- General George Patton Jr
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Balthagor »

So I've done some work on this. Some of the techs have simply been marked inactive until we have the time to do more with them. Some I'm not sure what should be done;

- Flak Towers, 1940 - Needs a facility added but we don't have the mesh. If I don't have a solution soon, I'll just pull the tech.

- Ion Domes, 2047 - Intention was for a facility, removed for now.

- Nano Weaponry, 2026 - We can't model what this would do ideally, it's more Bio/Chem style. It does however have a massive negative opinion. I like it to be there for those who are looking for extra ways to piss off other countries.

- Electronic Warfare III, 2009 - removed this and Adv. Electronic Warfare @ 2000. The original idea was a for an electronic warfare feature tied to a unit specialty. As it never came to be, the tech is unnecessary

- Portable AT Rockets, 1941 - There had been intentions of units to use this but they were found too small for our scale so dropped. Tech removed.

- Advanced Artillery II, 2015 - Tech is now used properly and more techs added to better space out researching new artillery

- Nuclear Supercarriers, 1955 - Tech is now properly used. 4 fiction variations of the Enterprise added for other region codes.

- Noncombustable fuels, 2022 - Intended effects not supportable at this time, tech removed

- Controlled Genetic Mutation, 2035 - Like Nano Weaponry, we can't really model what this would represents. Removed.

- Improved Laser Systems, 1966 - fixed broken link

- Advanced carbon forms, 1987 - fixed broken link

- Digital signal broadcasting, 2002 - Important to the population but no actual effect. Removed for now.

- Commercial Video Gaming, 1972 - Consider this one an Easter egg. It stays despite having no effect.

- Consumer GPS, 1998 - Important to the population but no actual effect. Removed for now.

- Digital Video Broadcasting, 1996 - Important to the population but no actual effect. Removed for now.

- CT Scan Imaging, 1967 - effects added

- Satellite TV, 1967 - - Important to the population. It has a notable DAR effect. I'm open to discussion on this one but for now it stayed in.

- Early Color Photography, 1935 - removed for now.

- Fluoridated water supply, 1945 - effects added.

I'll update the OP. Once we've had a bit of discussion on the remaining "dead ends", we can look at adding/increasing the effects of existing techs.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Zuikaku »

Balthagor wrote: - Flak Towers, 1940 - Needs a facility added but we don't have the mesh. If I don't have a solution soon, I'll just pull the tech.

Hodizzed did some mesh some time ago. He posted it on somewhere on this forum

- Nano Weaponry, 2026 - We can't model what this would do ideally, it's more Bio/Chem style. It does however have a massive negative opinion. I like it to be there for those who are looking for extra ways to piss off other countries.

How about lowering MAR for enemy military when war is declared?

- Noncombustable fuels, 2022 - Intended effects not supportable at this time, tech removed

Civilian oil consumption -50% ?

- Controlled Genetic Mutation, 2035 - Like Nano Weaponry, we can't really model what this would represents. Removed.

Agricultural output +100%, health care rating +10%, Births + 20%

- Digital signal broadcasting, 2002 - Important to the population but no actual effect. Removed for now.

Infrastructure costs -2%

- Commercial Video Gaming, 1972 - Consider this one an Easter egg. It stays despite having no effect.

DAR +5%

- Early Color Photography, 1935 - removed for now.

commercial taxes revenues +5%

- Fluoridated water supply, 1945 - effects added.

I'll update the OP. Once we've had a bit of discussion on the remaining "dead ends", we can look at adding/increasing the effects of existing techs.
Just a few suggestions...
Please teach AI everything!
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Balthagor »

Zuikaku wrote:... Hodizzed did some mesh some time ago. He posted it on somewhere on this forum[/color]
It was missing the ground texture.
Zuikaku wrote:...How about lowering MAR for enemy military when war is declared?
Such an effect does not exist. We're not looking at adding new kinds of effects, that's a coding issue. When I'm making these changes I'm as limited as any modder would be.
Zuikaku wrote:...Civilian oil consumption -50% ?
This is more of a military use thing. And it doesn't decrease the amount used, it just makes it less dangerous. Like the introduction of self sealing fuel tanks.
Zuikaku wrote:...Agricultural output +100%, health care rating +10%, Births + 20%
Techs can have a maximum of two effects. Not sure what human genetics changes would affect agriculture. Maybe give the description a read.
Zuikaku wrote:...Infrastructure costs -2%
I don't think TV signals count as infrastructure...
Zuikaku wrote:...DAR +5%
I disagree. Video games get popular support (already there) which impacts DAR but that's too much benefit for this tech.
Zuikaku wrote:...commercial taxes revenues +5%
Sales tax? There is no such effect currently.

Thanks for the ideas though
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by SGTscuba »

Couldn't portable AT weapons give infantry some bonus to anti tank or is that not possible (as they'll now have bazooka's rather than just grenades?)
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22083
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Balthagor »

You can only buff a stat, not a stat for a given class. It would increase the "hard attack" of boats and planes.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:You can only buff a stat, not a stat for a given class. It would increase the "hard attack" of boats and planes.
Fair enough
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2394
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Tech Tree - Tech effects and progression.

Post by Zuikaku »

Well, they used to hand anti tank rockets under the wings of fighters and fighter-bombers :D
Please teach AI everything!
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRU”