SMAX technology tree improvement

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Thinking about better designed technology tree in term of nicer technology connection and evolution. This is primarily for my WTP mod. However, it could be used by anyone since it is a standalone modification.

Purpose

* Emulate actual SMAX research development as outlined in story line and as supported by in game features.
* Keep sensible connections between technologies. Not super important but to extent possible.
* Support game features appearing at approximate time of discovery.
* Rename technologies for clarity.

At the same time do as less modifications as possible trying to preserve original name set.

Main idea

To have smaller number of technology families evolving gradually rather than a bunch of unconnected random appearances.

Technology families to keep

Centauri

One of the most important lore families moving us along the story line.

Studies Alpha Centauri itself and all its specifics (environment, creatures, fungus, etc.). I'd also add all alien technologies to it as side addition as they don't fit anywhere else. Supposedly, aliens knew more about AC already and share their secrets.

Applications
* Understand and exploit Centauri environment: fungus production, terraforming.
* Understand and produce natives.
* Ultimately understand fungus sentience and fungus neural network.

Brain, Neural application, Computers, Information, Algorithms, Digital sentience

Second most important story line family.

Studies brain function, neural network, computers, algorithms, brain/neural-computer interface, sentient algorithms, digital sentience.

Applications
* Direct research improvement applications.
* Chassis and abilities related to brain-machine control.
* All kind of networks and communications with other factions, global and local.
* Improved algorithms for warfare/industrial/economical breakthroughs.
* Understanding fungus sentience and fungus neural network.

Transcendence

This is an ultimate merge of two above families resulting in human population intellect to be uploaded into fungus neural network. I believe they should merge together at the very end for ultimate story line match: Secrets of Alpha Centauri + Digital Sentience -> Threshold of Transcendence or Secrets of the Manifolds + Digital Sentience -> Threshold of Transcendence (alternative version if we want Secrets of the Manifolds to be a path to final victory and not as alternative tree end).

Self-Aware Machines could be another option for end of digital family and lead to Threshold of Transcendence.

Science

Studies fundamental and applied science. It should also have some notable sub categories to emulate some sort of a progress and not just random named and unconnected "future techs".

Applications
* Warfare: weapon, armor, chassis, combat abilities, military infrastructure.
* Special infrastructure supposedly requiring new material and technologies (Habitation Dome).

Social

Studies all kind of social oriented things to support internal and global social organization. That also includes all kind of psychology related studies.

Applications
* Drone quelling related things (facilities, SE, abilities, etc.).
* SE in general.
* International relations and global relations (counsel, diplomacy, etc.).

Industry/Economics

I combined them together because they are very tightly coupled in game already on all levels.

Applications
* Infrastructure and wealth and growth.
* Some SE, of course.

Doctrines

Big combat related lore.

Applications
* Chassis and other combat/unit related stuff besides weapon and armor.

Research

This is not a dedicated family but we need to recognize some technologies to be research related or research boosting for any research oriented factions and because there is a research concept largely embedded in game. Research can come from any kind of existing families especially highlighting "fundamental research" association (opposing applied science).

Applications
* Research facilities.
* Some SE, of course.

Space exploration

Not many of them but they are quite logical step toward satellites and overall planet exploration.

Technology to potentially remove

Remove, replace or rename them to associate with main families.

Biology/Genetics

This is a very interesting subject. I am not sure how to deal with it, though. It doesn't connect to lore well, there are no much vanilla genetics technologies, they are pretty difficult to connect to other families, and this path ends with nothing. They are only there to justify specific features like Biogenetics -> Recycling Tanks, Gene Splicing -> Research Hospital, Retroviral Engineering -> Genejack Factory, Homo Superior -> Nanohospital, Biomachinery -> Cloning Vats, etc. They probably can be kept but we need to think how to phase them out so they do not end hanging at the very end.

Nanotech

Again just three of them. Interesting subject by itself but they start from nowhere and lead to nowhere.

Weird buzzword "science"

They are no cool nor clear to understand how they are connected to everything else or how they allow their corresponding features. Of course, it can be explained somehow but why bother? Anything can be "explained".

Matter Compression - only to justify Neutronium armor.
Frictionless Surfaces - no sensible applications.
Graviton Theory, Applied Gravitonics - only to justify things like Antigrav struts, Gravship chassis, Graviton gun ().
Singularity everything - only to justify things with word "singularity" in them. There are quite of few of them, though, including one reactor. However, I don't see how it stems from other science.
Temporal everything - just one of them.
Probability everything - same concern.
Super Tensile Solids - no sensible applications.
Photon/Wave Mechanics - just one of such.
Secrets of Creation - this is a logical end of science line. The question is - do we need science to end there and how should it lead to transcendence?
Organic Superlubricant - Eh?
N-Space Compression - another compression?

Potential renaming

Weird named buzzword techs could be renamed to stay in line with existing families or similar.

There are also some techs in dare need for renaming just for clarity. I constantly keep confusing Environmental Economics and Ecological Engineering. Although, they are completely different things.

Ecological -> Terraforming. I don't give a damn whether they are scientifically connected. I naturally associate ecology with environment protection. Whereas terraforming is quite the opposite thing.

Biogenetics -> Human Genetics, maybe? Genetics was part of biology AFAIK. Was it?

Doctrine: Flexibility, Doctrine: Initiative -> to something clearly highlighting they are naval/sea related. Now they are very abstractly named. Compare to Doctrine: Air Power, for example.

Adaptive Doctrine -> I guess it is fine as it is but it enables Marine detachment only. I guess we need to decide whether it is a generic warfare application or marine only.

[bvanevery]

A very basic problem is, the voice acting doesn't change just because you want to change stuff.  If you change it too much, then the narrative effect is jarring when the quotes are voiced.  One of the considerations I've made over the past 2+ years when reshuffling the tech tree numerous times, is whether the quotes and voice acting are being preserved with sufficient sensibility.  Or is the quote vague enough, that I can repurpose the tech somehow?

I'm assuming you're not willing to learn how to do voice acting, try to match the performance of original actors somewhat, and insert your own brand new material.  I did look into all of that, because I do believe I have the aptitude for voice acting.  However for that amount of work, there are many other things I could get done in my life.  I would rather have that work go into creative content ventures that can clearly make me money.  I wasn't interested in creating a "voice acting resume" or trying to get gigs in the industry.  It would be worth going up the learning curve if I wanted to do that.  As it is, I only want voice acting for my own games, maybe, someday.  It is clearly not the best area to put my time efforts into yet.  Let alone for SMAC modding, which will be hours and hours of work for $0.

So it's not actually good idea to rename Doctrine: Initiative.  How is Santiago's quote about Doctrine: Air Power going to make any sense if you do that?  She refers to Mobility, Flexibility, and Initiative.  You get rid of those and it's going to be like WTF?

Personally, I think it's ok to make players learn some of the lore of the game, of this world.  It doesn't have to be all spoon-fed pre-intelligible for arbitrary audiences.  You don't have to dumb things down for them.  There have been psychological studies that making people struggle a bit to understand something, actually increases their investment and attention for the knowledge.  You spoon feed, and it's in one ear and out the other.

Nanorobots figure into Miriam's gripes about robots taking over.  It's a pastiche about fear of the machine taking over.  Lal's fears about "thoughts crossing back" are in the same genre.  Although those are more about what our consciousness becomes.  Miriam's fears are more about the ultimate surveillance state, "We Must Dissent".  I modded for this story line in 2 ways.  First, I made Miriam perfectly able to study Knowledge, but totally unable to choose Cybernetic.  Second, I eventually made Cybernetic into the "evil anti-Planet" option.  Think about a Morganic surveillance moneymaking state ala the older Tom Cruise movie "Minority Report".  Every business surveys your eyes and pushes targeted holographic advertizing at you.

I did repurpose Frictionless Surfaces.  It has nothing inherently to do with a Cloaking Device.  First I changed it to Single-Sided Surfaces, and had it as my explanation for how Clean Reactors worked.  I hand waved, in my own mind, that it was some kind of Mobius Strip or Klein bottle.  Eventually though, I didn't need that explanation anymore.  It got repurposed for 3-Pulse armor and comm jammers.  I just needed an armor progression and that's how it worked out.  Frictionlessness isn't helpful for explaining ECM, so I didn't change it back.  Single-Sided is vague enough that I can explain all sorts of techno babble things that way.  Also, it's my mark as a modder, like a dog peeing on a tree!  I did this thing, why change it back?

I explain Hovertanks with Organic Superlubricant.  That's another really vague one.  "Oh it's great stuff great stuff."  WTF should it have anything to do with a Fusion Laser?  I also got rid of the Fusion Laser anyways.  I found having both a weapon and a reactor having the same name, to be very confusing for automated unit names.  I threw in some Trek homage, I have phasers.  Got a little tired of laser this, laser that anyways.

Anyways my hovertanks work on the same basic principle as mindworms going through fungus, whatever that is.  Some kind of slime or grease!  I don't have anything in-game to really spell this out, I just made a note of it in my design notes.  Hey, it's a better hand wave than saying it's for a Fusion Laser.

Anyways you can go on and on with the specific details of various quotes.  Some lock you into things, and others don't.

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Yep. I am aware of the quotes. Sometimes they will get in a way. So it is another consideration. Not that strong, though. People are aware they are playing modded version with reshuffled tree. They tolerate discrepancy.

If we can preserve lore to extent - awesome. Otherwise, eh. No biggie. I guess any complete newbie can play vanilla 100 times to listen and absorb all the quotes and project videos and blurbs and books and interludes and all other additional content. At some point they stop paying attention.

Besides, I do want to make it closer to original tree. So it is a step toward quote preservation, not away.

[bvanevery]

People are aware they are playing modded version with reshuffled tree. They tolerate discrepancy.

That's not 100% true.  I had a poster in r/alphacentauri the other day that was going straight for my mod, no previous learning curve in SMAC.  It surprised me, and it wasn't the game design circumstance I expected or planned for.  But, there it was.  There were legitimate reasons for him to do it, the details of which escape me, but it had to do with quality of the play balancing experience.  They were facile with 4X TBS, just not SMAC.  So I made my unusual recommendation.

You also cannot count on how well players remember tech trees.  Just because you or I may be able to quote chapter and verse with all the techs, doesn't mean everyone else is that facile or motivated.  People don't all usually put the same amount of time into SMAC lore.  We're in a circumstance where people such as myself, are extolling SMAC on r/4Xgaming as "something you should try now".  It's not just an audience of "old guard" recapturing old glory.  We're getting brand new players.

So I'd advise you not to assume that people are just going to mentally navigate from the original work, and thereby make sense of everything.  Your work should stand on its own.  If you botch the quotes too much, it really is a problem.  They'll say "WAT?" and they may be blaming you.

I actually get players reporting bugs in my mod threads on r/alphacentauri.  I take great pains to establish whether it's a bug in the original game, so that my own work doesn't get sullied.  So far so good.  But the fact that people think they should raise a bug in my mod thread, means that not everyone is an expert about the original game.  And heck, I didn't even know about the bug anyways.  It was news to me!

At some point they stop paying attention.

Don't assume that.  4X TBS gaming is a high pass filter for players that are anal.  There's almost no such thing as a casual 4X TBS player in the wild.

[Trenacker]

I see similar opportunities to modify the technology tree, both as a matter of "rationalization," to draw sharper, clearer lines between tech and application, and because of the linkage between tech and narrative in SMAC. A new tech is an opportunity to do some world-building.

Since I was doing this creation in the context of a wargame, I opted to greatly expand the technology tree. I started by trying to define the distinction between tech and doctrine. Then, I decided on the different ways I wanted that tech and doctrine to actually influence the game.

For me, scientific research was supposed to deal with practical advancements made mostly in the laboratory. Doctrine was about revolutions in thought that could influence faction behavior, particularly on the battlefield. Simply put, research is about crafting new things. Doctrine is about acting in a better or different way.

I then laid out the focus areas:

• The Build path contains advances in materials science, engineering, and industrial organization that are directed toward the built environment. Follow this path to enhance base infrastructure and improve production.
• The Discover path relates to the Terran physical and life sciences, including descriptive neurology and psychology. Follow this path to unlock the potential of the flora and fauna brough to Chiron from Earth.
• The Explore path deals with the physical and life sciences of Chiron. Follow this path to learn more about how to influence or exploit Planet.
• The Conquer path focuses on technology with direct military applications. Follow this path to expand your arsenal.
• The Expand path is concerned with population growth and mobility. Follow this path to expand your footprint and awareness on Chiron, and to reverse-engineer the survival kit recovered from Unity.
• The Command path is organized around doctrines with implications for social control.
• The Choose path explores thought as technology associated with the ethical challenges of survival in a hostile environment. Follow this path to train your followers in ascetic techniques like water discipline or to inculcate civic virtues.

As you can see, the example of Frank Herbert's Dune inspired me to look at how doctrine could be related to certain mental disciplines that had more to do with changing perspectives toward one's environment than accumulating new data about it.

Since I wanted the game to linger in the Planetfall phase, I also considered adding a so-called Unity path that looked specifically at "Level 0" technology like Industrial Base. SMAC's "Level 0" was a mix of old and new. Industrial Base had to be essentially rediscovered (to the extent it even qualifies as a "tech" at all), while the breakthroughs embodied by Social Psych only emerged from analysis of data accumulated during the Unity voyage.

Here are some examples of new "Level 0" tech I added, along with associated flavor text:

• Austere Medicine - During those first, harrowing years after Planetfall, complex medicine was virtually unheard of. There were two, maybe three mobile surgeries operating within our territory. Infection was rampant in such a humid environment, and analgesics worth their weight in gold. Many of the Colony Pods recovered near the landing site had been cracked and their contents spoiled. Bad drugs were a serious concern. A run of people in the Paddock died from botched attempts to treat abscessed teeth. Efficacy of intervention was very low, and our standard of care became brutal as a result: we cauterized wounds to conserve sutures and regularly administered overdoes of morphine to anyone we judged might need intensive care over the long term--care we simply couldn't provide. – Lara Cambrysis, Emergency Medical Technician, Main Force Patrol
• UNITY Workshops - Factions that seized large quantities of heavy construction equipment before escaping the UNITY enjoyed a compounding advantage. The pulsing heart of every early colony was the machine shop, where scrap could be transformed into shelter and complex devices returned to service. No settlement was complete without a defensive rampart. Irrigation ditches, pipelines, and foundations needed to be sunk in the ground and large tracts of xenofungus cleared to admit agriculture. All these things were also possible by hand, of course, but it was a question of weeks versus months of effort for often-sick and -starving colonists. - Librarian Setwe Abanake, "Lectures on Planetfall"
• Doctrine: Special War - The fundamental condition between factions on Chiron is anarchy: each one, being sovereign, does not admit of any rights or privileges on the part of any others. As there is no power to define wrongdoing, let alone punish or restrain it, each one lives in mortal fear of its neighbor. And yet, with an eye to reducing uncertainty and the burdens of preparedness and anxiety that must result, they have gradually coined certain norms between them: no vendetta without cassis belli, no militarization of the Uranium Flats, and so on. Each proceedes in the hope that to exercise these principles themselves is to stimulate reciprocation by others. To practice Special War is to be scrupulous in the performance of these virtues, but not their observance. - Director Aleigha Cohen, "Wolves Among Sheep"
• Hydraulic Tapping - To tear treasure out of the bowels of the land was their desire, with no more moral purpose at the back of it than there is in burglars breaking into a safe. - Heart of Darkness

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

Interesting approach. I like the grouping you made and try to adhere to. I see you are changing the whole tree completely together with tech renaming. Do you add or modify existing game features too?

[Trenacker]

Thanks, tnevolin.

To clarify, I am building a text/forum-based politico-military simulation, not modding the computer game. However, I think some of the creative process for both is naturally complementary.

I think it depends on what you mean by "game features." I do add randomized events and faction-specific objectives (e.g., build a base facility that can send and receive messages from Earth, enforce freedom of movement on Chiron's seas, etc.), which are both technically new features familiar to modern 4X games. I added the Affinity system from Beyond Earth, which I quite liked, but haven't done much with it other than to use it as a handy marker for the kinds of values a faction has, which is arguably redundant (since values are part of Social Engineering).

I add a lot of flavor, including new factions (Hunters of Chiron, Human Ascendancy, Dreamers of Chiron, Human Tribe, New Two Thousand, Shapers of Chiron), dozens of new base facilities and technologies with their own quotations and Datalinks entries, and new types of Population ("Specials," which are above Talents; Technicians, who deal with equipment and improvements; Overseers, which neutralize labor discontent; Librarians, who assist with base administration; Thinkers, who pursue doctrine and increase faction influence; and Robots, which are simple laborers.)

[Alpha Centauri Bear]

not modding the computer game

You are not talking about SMACX modding at all? Is it some completely standalone project? Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

[bvanevery]

I'm now aware of your SMAC-like RPGish wargame.  I will comment on these categories as though they were proposals and breakdowns for SMAC proper.  My points may have relevance for a player of any game, because they're about how we conceptualize things as distinct categories.

• The Build path contains advances in materials science, engineering, and industrial organization that are directed toward the built environment. Follow this path to enhance base infrastructure and improve production.
• The Discover path relates to the Terran physical and life sciences, including descriptive neurology and psychology. Follow this path to unlock the potential of the flora and fauna brough to Chiron from Earth.
• The Explore path deals with the physical and life sciences of Chiron. Follow this path to learn more about how to influence or exploit Planet.
• The Conquer path focuses on technology with direct military applications. Follow this path to expand your arsenal.
• The Expand path is concerned with population growth and mobility. Follow this path to expand your footprint and awareness on Chiron, and to reverse-engineer the survival kit recovered from Unity.
• The Command path is organized around doctrines with implications for social control.
• The Choose path explores thought as technology associated with the ethical challenges of survival in a hostile environment. Follow this path to train your followers in ascetic techniques like water discipline or to inculcate civic virtues.

Conquer is the clear one of the bunch.  Unambiguous.  I did the same thing in my mod.  If you want weapons and armor, you study Conquer.  You don't get them any other way.  No "sprinkling of benefits" in other categories, like the original game did.  The most egregious example of that was the strength 6 Missile Launcher for Explore 6: Synthetic Fossil Fuels.  The Gaians should not be given the keys to the kingdom like that.

Build would be straightforward, but you're undermining it with Expand.  Surely if you want to expand, you have to build stuff?

Discover=Earth, Explore=Chiron does not basically make sense.  We don't currently know a lot of what's going on under our own oceans, and nobody would have gained that knowledge in the cataclysmic events leading up to the launch of the Unity.  There's tons of stuff we don't know about our own solar system as well, and again, wouldn't in the game's fiction.

I think here, you are running afoul of 2 different design preoccupations.  The desire to keep a style of language for specifying categories (Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer per the original game), vs. trying to cleanly separate different areas of social endeavor.  Earth Sciences vs. Xenobiology would be completely straightforward, for instance.  In your shoes, I would pick one preoccupation to be "loyal" to. 

"Command vs. Choose" is a contrast that could work.  Authoritarian examples are easy to come up with.  I'm less certain what's going to be an example of a society "choosing", since generally speaking, law is a policy decision.  But maybe you'll have something.  I'd need to see concrete examples to pass judgment.  When I think about social engineering choices and government models actually bestowed by the game, there's nothing clearly in the SE table that I'd call "choosing".  Rather, a Police State is enforced, or a Democracy is enforced, or a Theocracy is enforced...

It is possible that drawing a categorical contrast with "Choose" is a wrong move, and that all these things are really forms of Command.

[Trenacker]

You are not talking about SMACX modding at all? Is it some completely standalone project? Sorry, I misunderstood you then.

No. The ideas I developed were not specifically intended for SMACX the computer game, although I would certainly love to find a modder capable of adding them.

Conquer is the clear one of the bunch.  Unambiguous.  I did the same thing in my mod.  If you want weapons and armor, you study Conquer.  You don't get them any other way.  No "sprinkling of benefits" in other categories, like the original game did.  The most egregious example of that was the strength 6 Missile Launcher for Explore 6: Synthetic Fossil Fuels.  The Gaians should not be given the keys to the kingdom like that.

Build would be straightforward, but you're undermining it with Expand.  Surely if you want to expand, you have to build stuff?

Discover=Earth, Explore=Chiron does not basically make sense.  We don't currently know a lot of what's going on under our own oceans, and nobody would have gained that knowledge in the cataclysmic events leading up to the launch of the Unity.  There's tons of stuff we don't know about our own solar system as well, and again, wouldn't in the game's fiction.

I think here, you are running afoul of 2 different design preoccupations.  The desire to keep a style of language for specifying categories (Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer per the original game), vs. trying to cleanly separate different areas of social endeavor.  Earth Sciences vs. Xenobiology would be completely straightforward, for instance.  In your shoes, I would pick one preoccupation to be "loyal" to.

"Command vs. Choose" is a contrast that could work.  Authoritarian examples are easy to come up with.  I'm less certain what's going to be an example of a society "choosing", since generally speaking, law is a policy decision.  But maybe you'll have something.  I'd need to see concrete examples to pass judgment.  When I think about social engineering choices and government models actually bestowed by the game, there's nothing clearly in the SE table that I'd call "choosing".  Rather, a Police State is enforced, or a Democracy is enforced, or a Theocracy is enforced...

It is possible that drawing a categorical contrast with "Choose" is a wrong move, and that all these things are really forms of Command.

Overall, I agree with you: the research pathways are not as distinct as I wish they were. Part of this is because, in trying to be loyal to the original categories presented by the game designers, I am mapping onto a flawed foundation, the style of language. And that absolutely competes with the categorization into separate areas of social endeavor. But I did pick one preoccupation: the first.

I think Discover and Explore are distinct in gameplay terms, but there is certainly no factual validity in pretending there is a total separation between the science that must be done on Earth, or with regard to the legacies of Earth, and the science that must be done on Chiron. Physics on Earth is the same as physics on Jupiter.

Command and Choose also cross over. At the end of the day, as in the original SMAC/X, I am comfortable relying on the colors and some loose, imperfect categorization to help players make their decisions. It's not as sharp as a left/right divide, but it's "left enough" and "right enough" to let them get their bearings.

If I were to try to be more specific, Choose is about certain mental disciplines or values that all of society is supposed to practice to "live better," while Command is about a series of technologies and strategies designed to bring about compliance to an abstract authority.

[bvanevery]

My resolution for Explore vs. Discover is character driven.  Zhakarov gets the physics particle techs, Deirde gets the Xenobiology techs.  It's what the game actually did.  It's better to try to respect the game's original boundaries and marketing campaign, when it actually does work.  Game mechanically, Discover techs make LABS research go faster.  That's all they do.  If you're trying to win by Transcending, you probably want those.  Although, that in and of itself is a confusing moral objective, as the game lore makes it Deidre's bailiwick, not Zhakarov's.

Explore is the most problematic category of the original game.  It does way too much stuff.  It's Deidre's mindworm and Planet stuff.  It's also "colonization and growth" to the AI.  SMACX AI Growth mod started out based on this observation.  Then I compounded the problem by taking Happiness techs away from Build and putting them into Explore.  Doesn't work for wordsmithing, does work for "colonization and growth".  In my mod, a city can be big and happy and poor as dirt.  It can be wealthy and miserable.  Frankly I see that as the Capitalist Morganic way of life, at least for the strata of society that the rich fat cats live on the backs of.

So I have way too many early Explore techs.  Damn if I'm going to send them back to Build though.  At least as my Explore tree goes on, it thins out into only / mostly mindworm tech stuff.  And it's a nearly isolated branch of the tree, ultimately culminating in The Manifold Harmonics.  Hab Domes are Explore but they're also cross-listed with Build and in a different part of the tree.

If I were to fix this, based on what I've actually got after 2+ years of the heaviest possible thinking about in-game categorization, I clearly need a "Happiness" category.  But I don't have an (Explore, Discover, Build, Conquer) style word for it.  Nor any incentive to binary hack it.  It's more like brand new game territory.

Oh, and Explore also gets used for most of the vehicle chasses.  Needlejets less so, because they don't actually have any explorational range, for the time of the game at which they appear.  And I don't allow Copters, except for my gonzo Unity Lifter unit, basically a fast Transport copter.  Big mystery why nobody managed to make any more of those ever...

[Trenacker]

Sounds like you are saying: Discovery (physics, inorganic chemistry) and Explore (biology, organic chemistry).

The flies in the ointment are Build and Conquer, which presumably involve physics-related advancements also. Thus, what you get is watered down to: Discovery (research) and Explore (life sciences). You could, of course, eliminate Build and collapse it all under Discovery, which I think is the most parsimonious solution.

I am hypothesizing that the game designers wanted to sort the technologies by the type of utility they offered, which I think is why it makes so much sense to me that there is some cross-pollination between all/most of the tree. From a player's perspective, it's clear what I'm going to get when I say, "Let's focus on Build," versus, "Let's focus on Expand." If I want more facilities and improvements, I build. If I want to quell Drone riots, I go with Command. If I want to fry someone's rover with a laser, I go Conquest. If I want to understand more about Chiron, I go Explore. If I want to make a weird future society, Choose is my thing. If I want to build a great many colonies quickly, Expand. If I need to learn about adapting Earth crops to Chiron's soil, Discover.

[bvanevery]

Even the game's lore made a clear distinction between theoretical and applied sciences.  Unified Field Theory is a Discover tech.  You are missing that "If I want research to go faster, Discover" was clearly part of the original game.

If I want to quell Drone riots, I go with Command.

Military command and societal command aren't exactly the same thing.  It's not clear to me why land, sea, air, and space Doctrines are the same thing as Police State, Thought Control, and Punishment Spheres.  And Power, is it a Command or is it Conquer?  I don't have extra Command or Choose categories, so I don't have any confusion on this point.  And I know from Santiago's characterization that my decision is correct with respect to the game lore.

You have complicated your problems by expanding the decisionmaking into a larger game, with greater numbers of players, a greater surface area of simulation interactions, and roleplaying.  As the game gets larger, I can see why you might be tempted to make the verbal category set get larger as well.  But you may be doing yourself a disservice.  Less may be more.

If I need to learn about adapting Earth crops to Chiron's soil, Discover.

No, Explore.  Pay attention to the game lore, particularly Deidre's quotes.  This is Xenobiology 101.

If I want to make a weird future society, Choose is my thing.

This begs a big question: why?  All your other categorizations are choices as well.  You're always choosing... choose what?

There's nothing inherent about the word 'Choose', that indicates Eudaimonia.

Cybernetic, do you choose that?  Seems more like a Life Sciences prereq.  What is Secrets of the Human Brain?  Since the original game is not saddled with a need for a lot of extra verbs, it's simply a Discover tech.  Can discover particle physics, can discover fundamentals of human consciousness.  Ala Pre-Sentient Algorithms, although I don't actually buy their mathematical hand wave about that.

If a Cybernetic future society has research prereqs, like needing to know how to jack into a human brain, and it's just a social engineering choice, given you have all your prereqs, then why do you need another research path to choose it?  Conceptually that's just a speed bump delay on the obvious.

It's similar to asking the question, why does Democracy need to be 'researched' ?  Frankly it doesn't.  I've interpreted it as needing a certain degree of infrastructure to implement.  Apropos in my mod since it makes you money.  Theocratic, I now have the least of requirements for it: just Social Psych.  Getting people to believe in a God is one of the oldest tricks in the human book!

When does the player start playing?  What are they required to already know, in order to play?  I introduce all my Politics and Economics by Tier 2, in the early game.  These could all be said to be a protracted exposition about the basics of the game.  A somewhat different game design could start out with these choices presupposed.

[Trenacker]

Even the game's lore made a clear distinction between theoretical and applied sciences.

In the names of individual technologies, yes, but not in distribution across the categories. "Theory" technologies appear in three of four branches: Superstring Theory (Conquer), Advanced Subatomic Theory (Discover), Explore (Graviton Theory). Only the Build Technologies are without an explicitly-labeled theoretical technology, and even then, it features technologies like "Temporal Mechanics" and "Probability Mechanics" that sound more like principle-based frameworks and less like immediate applications.

Per the game's instruction manual, there were four types of technologies available in SMAC:

• Technologies for your base
• Technologies for your units
• Technologies related to Planet
• Technologies related to theoretical science

Membership in these categorizes was not intuitive. Technologies were (one might assume) grouped according to what they did in gameplay terms, but Bioadaptive Resonance, Retroviral Engineering, Photon/Wave Mechanics, Superconductors, and Matter Compression, all in the Conquer category, do not scream "military application" at first glance. Likewise, it is hard to see how Synthetic Fossil Fuels or Metallurgy are advances possible only on an alien world.

Military command and societal command aren't exactly the same thing.  It's not clear to me why land, sea, air, and space Doctrines are the same thing as Police State, Thought Control, and Punishment Spheres.  And Power, is it a Command or is it Conquer?  I don't have extra Command or Choose categories, so I don't have any confusion on this point.  And I know from Santiago's characterization that my decision is correct with respect to the game lore.

I don't think it's inherently confusing. Conquer is about building weapons. Command is about subjugation through means other than war. Perhaps the definitions can even be better refined for clarity: Conquer is about overcoming external resistance, and Command is about overcoming internal resistance, although I think the distinction is more on the types of tools rather than their targets. Conquer is about the military and Command is about social control.

No, Explore.  Pay attention to the game lore, particularly Deidre's quotes.  This is Xenobiology 101.

I was referring to the guidance that a player would receive in my own simulation.

This begs a big question: why?  All your other categorizations are choices as well.  You're always choosing... choose what?

That's no more or less valid than saying that every type of technology in SMAC is also a discovery, or also allows you to build something. It's supposed to be an evocative word.

When does the player start playing?  What are they required to already know, in order to play?  I introduce all my Politics and Economics by Tier 2, in the early game.  These could all be said to be a protracted exposition about the basics of the game.  A somewhat different game design could start out with these choices presupposed.

Brian Reynolds tackled just this problem in an interesting podcast from several years ago. He explained that most players already have a schema that lets them very easily apprehend what will happen in historical strategy games if they research Archery or The Wheel, for example. It was a challenge for him to come up with equally intuitive systems for SMAC because people didn't share a deep fund of knowledge about future technology.

My hypothesis is that, in order to play, one merely needs to be given an explanation of what is tech versus doctrine and what research along each of the branches can potentially offer. The basic explanations I offer are designed to allow the player to say, "If I want to do X, then I clearly need to devote energies down this path."

[bvanevery]

Membership in these categorizes was not intuitive. Technologies were (one might assume) grouped according to what they did in gameplay terms, but Bioadaptive Resonance, Retroviral Engineering, Photon/Wave Mechanics, Superconductors, and Matter Compression, all in the Conquer category, do not scream "military application" at first glance. Likewise, it is hard to see how Synthetic Fossil Fuels or Metallurgy are advances possible only on an alien world.

Are you picking on the names of the techs, or what the techs give you?  Because I'm inclined to view the former as whatever techno babble they came up with, and not problematic.  BTW it's Nanometallurgy, not Metallurgy.  Metallurgy is what gives you Cannons in Civ II or Freeciv.  The dumb part about some of that was giving you things like a Carrier Deck as some kind of "advanced" ability.  This is an artifact of skinning the tech tree of Civ II.

No, Explore.  Pay attention to the game lore, particularly Deidre's quotes.  This is Xenobiology 101.

I was referring to the guidance that a player would receive in my own simulation.

Bad guidance if it's to be SMAC.  You have to explore an alien landscape to understand and utilize its flora and fauna.  Xenobiology 101.  You can discover anything.  You can discover you had an extra sandwich in the back of your refrigerator.  If you're climbing a tech tree, how is anything not a discovery?  Only thing I can think of, is the things inserted in the tree that aren't actually techs, but social conditions.  Like Democracy.

That's no more or less valid than saying that every type of technology in SMAC is also a discovery,

So we agree on that problem, that "to discover" doesn't mean much in a tech tree.  At least the original game is recursive about it!  "Discover is about making discoveries more quickly."  Yeah, uh, discover what?  "Everything".  Well except you'll spend most of your time discovering the discoveries that make you discover everything faster.

We have nothing to research, except... research itself!

It's supposed to be an evocative word.

I'm trying to tell you that your tonal poem "Command vs. Choose" means more to you, than it does to an arbitrary player trying to figure out what's going on.  It's a specific instance of the general game design problem, "categories mean more to the designer who wrote them, than the new player who hasn't seen them used before." 

My hypothesis is that, in order to play, one merely needs to be given an explanation of what is tech versus doctrine and what research along each of the branches can potentially offer.

I'm suggesting that "Choose" is capable of being fantastically bad guidance for a new player.  No a priori mental model of what's a "Choice" vs. anything else.

Players actually quit games when guidance is fantastically bad.  It may take more than one such thing, but player irritation with things they don't understand, is cumulative.