Clarifications

[The Rock Doctor]

Okay, guys, the research rules just don't work.  Something has to give - whether it's the base cost of research, the escalating cost of research, or the IC/pop thing.

The current iteration is going to create technological stagnation. 

[Walter]

It is like what mike said a bit earlier about this...

You can have an economy or research not both it appears to start.

So the way it is now, you either go for a research budget which would come at the cost of some of the revenue or you go for revenue which would come at the cost of the research budget.

[Kaiser Kirk]

Italy is at the same $1, and will initially just be digesting techs I've traded for. As I've traded for 3, that's all of 1900,
and 0.5 for 1901 gone. That may spur me to double down on IC in Sardinia, to gain a $0.5, as the TRUNC part of the equation has been dropped, allowing for partial research $$. Otherwise I *really* need to find someone else to trade the 1900 Terni Armor plate with, so I can use that other $0.5 - my fault, haven't looked at the long term enough.

As a player of the weakest nation, I like the escalating cost, as it makes it less likely I'll be left in the dust.
However, only if I research the non-mainstream techs am I likely to have something to trade the other players, researching the same tech just negates that potential trade. Pretty sure all the majors will spring for aircraft research...making it pointless for me to do so. MTBs though...both Italian, and something I might be able to peddle -either as a tech or as goods. 

May be interesting to figure out the average time to research a tech, the number of techs 1900-1920, and the likely amount of RD$ needed to research them. Then figure out if the player nations, in a coordinated effort, seem likely manage that.

However, I have fuschias and a hedge to prune, and a tiny blue car to finish fixing.

[Walter]

as the TRUNC part of the equation has been dropped, allowing for partial research $$.

I found it a lot more fun without the TRUNC bit to see all the various research numbers pop up during my test runs. :)

MTBs though...both Italian, and something I might be able to peddle -either as a tech or as goods. 

I agree with that one. Italy = MAS so you not researching the MTB tech is a sin. ;D

[Kaiser Kirk]

So, research rules are that after 24mo, there's a 20% chance, after 30months, a 60% and after 36mo, 100%.
That means you will definitely spend (4x1) $4.
That means there is a 80% chance you will have to spend a further $1
And then there's a 40% chance you will have to spend another $1.

So I put the average cost of researching a tech at 4+0.8+0.32 = $5.12

1900-1920 inclusive
I count about 62 Naval techs and 46 land based techs.
Granted, the inclusion of 1900 techs which some have, and 1920 techs which will only be starting distorts things a tad.

However, that's 108 turns needed.
Requiring $552.96 research dollars.....if single tech research done.

So, how much research are countries doing..after they re-adjust ?

England :Guessing 2 techs ($3)
France : Guessing 2
Germany : Guessing 2
Russia : Guessing 2
USA : Guessing 2
Italy : 1
Japan : 1
Ottoman : 1
China : 0
-----
11

With 40 turns, and 9 active players, and the scaling rules
There are 360 opportunities for spending $1 researching a Tech...except China isn't researching yet.
Lets' pretend they are, so So lets say 12*40 = 480

On the one hand, that's only $70 short, and over 20 years economies will rocket.
One the other, there's a ton of 1900-1910 short term techs, and I'm guessing in
many cases that 2nd $ will go to guns/turrets/etc, as those *don't* scale.

I would guess, that by time we get to 1920, we will be relatively caught up in technology.
I would also guess that by 1910, we will be lagging.
I'm also guessing some techs may languish until 1915.


Oh, inconsistancy in research rules :

To "digest" technology that was obtained from another country, $0.5 must be spent for two half-year turns. Doing this in secret doubles the cost. One can not begin digesting technology from another country until the half-year after they successfully completed developing it.
....
Once 15 years has passed since a technology's 'base research-able' date, it is considered to be common knowledge. After that point, it may be researched by any nation as though it were being digested from another nation. Or in other words, $0.25 must be spent on that tech for two half-year turns.

From the text, the two costs should be equivalent.


ok, NOW the chores.

[Walter]

except China isn't researching yet.

Don't worry. It'll come... some Day... some HY... some Year... :D

I would guess, that by time we get to 1920, we will be relatively caught up in technology.
I would also guess that by 1910, we will be lagging.

Ignoring the economy and research budget, one reason why we will be lagging in 1910 is that in the period of 1900-1910 there are 63 techs becoming available to research while in the period 1911-1920, that number is down to 48 (76% of the total in the 1900-1910 period). Should be noted that in the period 1921-1930, only 22 techs will become available for research (35% of the total in the 1900-1910 period).

Putting it in smaller periods you'll get:
1900-1905 - 33 techs
1906-1910 - 30 techs
1911-1915 - 25 techs
1916-1920 - 23 techs
1921-1925 - 11 techs
1926-1930 - 11 techs

[Kaiser Kirk]

That's a good observation Walter.
There's an irony that the earlier techs require more research $ to keep up, just when we don't have any.


So while doing chores,

I realized I missed a significant step.
While it seems likely that all the tech steps could be researched, if countries worked together (BIG and rather metagamely IF),
I forgot about digestion.

Let's take the UK.
Say her economy gets to where there's $15+ R&D and 5 techs a turn can be researched.
Ok, 40 turns, x 5 techs / turn = 200 tech research turns, average of 4+.2+.48+.32=  5 turns the UK can then
research 40 techs total.
Leaving 60+ to be digested.
Which take 2 turns apiece.
So that's 120 turns worth of digestion.
So 3 per turn every turn, or $1.5.

So, from 1900 to 1920, to stay in the lead in tech, the biggest nation would need to generate ~$16.5 RD
plus any for guns & mountings- say $1...  or $17.5,
which requires a surplus of 35IC over pop.

It will be a while until the UK hits that point. So, overall N6 will lag the real world.
It will be longer for other major powers.
For the minors, we just will have to skip categories entirely.
And it gets way worse if countries actually protect trade secrets.

I don't know if the above meets the R&D rules design goals or not.

On the bonus side my 1890s ships won't be obsolete nearly as fast,
and *Everyone* should be wanting my tech....so long as I don't duplicate someone else. 

[snip]

Logi and I will talk about it, but I am going to be tied up for the next dayish. We are working on it.

[The Rock Doctor]

I shall release a trial balloon.

Walter notes we have 63 techs for the 1900 decade.  Let's assume a great power should be able to research 75% of these on their own.  Call it 45 techs.  With an average of 5 half-years, or one quarter of a decade, the great power needs to be capable of researching 11 techs at a time. 

Let's retain the general notion that there should be some sort of rising cost of research as more techs are done at one time.  We'll set aside the doubling of costs and see if other scaling works.

Similarly, let's set aside the base price of $1 per tech.

Let's assume that R&D capacity is simply a dollar for every IC in excess of the population:  $2 where you've got $3 and 1 mega-citizen, for example.  We could probably allow fractional IC, so if the area's got 3 IC and the population jumps to 1.1 million people, you have a research budget of $1.90

Germany's a great power here.  It has one area where IC exceeds population by three, giving it a research budget of $3.  We're cognizant that Germany can probably double its economy in the next five years.  Therefore, let's say we're comfortable with the notion of Germany being able to research 11 projects on $6.  That'll be about 10% of their starting budget, but only 5% of their ~1905 budget.

So...let's assume the basic tech cost is $0.10 per turn.  Each additional tech above the first costs an extra $0.10 more than the previous one.  The scaling is then:

Tech 1:  $0.10
Tech 2:  $0.20
Tech 3:  $0.30
Tech 4:  $0.40 - This adds up to $1.00, which is the Ottoman starting limit.
Tech 5:  $0.50
Tech 6:  $0.60
Tech 7:  $0.70 - This adds up to $2.80, which would be Germany's starting limit.
Tech 8:  $0.80
Tech 9:  $0.90
Tech 10:  $1.00
Tech 11:  $1.10 - This adds up to $6.60, which generally fits our stated objective of $6 for eleven techs.

The scaling of the prices is fairly intuitive:  Tech #X costs 10% of X.

Obviously, we need to revise gun research costs downward to match.  I'm tempted to suggest $0.02 per inch of diameter of the weapon.  $0.0008 if you want to work in millimetres.  That would mean a 12 inch gun would cost $0.24, making it a hefty project for somebody with an Ottoman-sized research budget, but not a huge deal for a Germany or UK.

We also need to play with digestion costs.   A flat $0.10 for two half years?  Or have it fit into the progression above ($0.1, $0.2, etc) but only require a single half-year of payment?

Thoughts?

[Kaiser Kirk]

1) I'm glad someone else decided to make a proposal.
2) A potential problem with setting it to 75% of the techs in the in the first decade is that by time we get to later years there are fewer techs and larger economies, that 75% will hit 100%. If a design goal is to prevent 1 nation from researching all, that is defeated.
3) I'm kinda intrigued by the idea of a "native genius" bonus 1 RD for each nation. Not sure why though.
4) One could make the cost of the tech escalate by how deep in the R&D tree it is, instead of the # being researched. That would make the numerous earlier techs easier to research simultaneously, while the fewer later ones would require the larger economy. One downfall of this is the techs that started in 1880 already have some levels in, but that could be addressed somehow.
5) Alternately, give progressively cheaper research rates for each year past the initial one, until the 15 years. So if 100% in y0 for 5 halves and 50% in 2 halves in Y15 (effectively 1/4), give -5% cost per year past the first. Research 1902 in 1908, that's -30% cost per half.

just some musings

[The Rock Doctor]

You're probably right about #2.  As you point out, it's iffy and meta-gamey to assume we're all going to trade techs with each other.  We have alliance blocs forming; we're not likely to see trade between somebody and their ally's rival.

I think the question is - do we really need so many new techs in the 1900s in particular?  Can we dump the experimental stuff and consolidate a few others?

#4 may solve the issue as well.  If individual tech costs gradually escalate with time, it will take longer before anybody is self-sufficient.

[miketr]

My own two bits is that I don't like the idea of having these artificial regions as research centers.  They are fairly arbitrary in size and make up.  I think its much simpler to just move to a pure cash system.  Tech 1 costs X, Tech 2 costs X+Y, etc.  None of this silly stuff with your get research points because of the difference IC and POP in a region.

My one thought on Rock Doctors suggestion is that lower costs is better but it still has the IC to Pop Comparison.

Lets just have pure cash costs and be done with it.  Or if the Mods are dead set on having IC be a factor then let it be the only one.  Lets have some formula based on number of IC in the home nation.  IE colonies don't count. 

How number of IC divided by 10?

So research limits would be

Country	IC	Research Limit
USA	43	$       4.30
ENG	18	$       1.80
GER	28	$       2.80
FRA	12	$       1.20
RUS	21	$       2.10
TUR	13	$       1.30
CHI	7	$       0.70
JAP	12	$       1.20

If people want to limit things more than do a divide by 20 instead of 10.

But I really think a pure cash cost is the way to go.

Michael

[Kaiser Kirk]

The fun part is you look at that chart and you find the country with the most Brains- China, finishes last.

Well, why was China- a huge, ancient civilization that was responsible for many inventions over the millenia...not very original.
In large part because it's society had stagnated, but also a huge chunk of those brains didn't think beyond the concerns of their rice paddy villages.

Industrialization preceeded by improved agricultural practices, frees brains from illiterate farming, and moves them to urban areas with a variety of challenges. Literacy and education become both more useful, and for the modestly well off, industrialization creates more idle time. 

So I think the current formulation of industrialization in excess of population having the side effect of research is correct.
What it skips is that "genius" factor , the Hazemaijer, the Fokker, the Bugatti, the Marconi, the Floranini, the Bernardi... the individuals that just stand out even when the country isn't a industrial powerhouse. But Floranini was a professor of Engineering, and got funding for his 1906 Hydrofoil and model helicopter...living in Northern Italy where it was most industrialized and so had need for professors of Engineering. However, managing to get a working helo model 13m up in 1877 is a fair accomplishment, and the Po Valley wasn't terribly industrialized then.

[Logi]

Here's what we are looking at for the modification to the research rules:

1. Removal of the concurrent research cost escalation.
2. Reworking the year difference cost of tech.
3. Removal of the "Divide-by-two" section of Pop:IC limits

<1>

Researching technology has a scaling cost starting from $1 each half-year. Each additional technology being researched that half-year will have double the cost of the previous technology.

Completely removed.

<2>
The year difference cost formula was:

c = cost
b = Base cost
y = year difference, earlier is negative, later is positive

If y < 0 : c = b*(y2 + 1)
If y = 0 : c = b
If y > 0 : c = b⁄y

Now it will be:

If y < 0 : c = MAX(0.05 * Year Difference, 0.25)
If y ≥ 0 : c = e ^ (0.321888 * Year Difference)

The formula isn't that important, it's just used to derive this table (which is what you will see in the rules anyways)

Year Difference	Cost
-15	$0.25
-14	$0.30
-13	$0.35
-12	$0.40
-11	$0.45
-10	$0.50
-9	$0.55
-8	$0.60
-7	$0.65
-6	$0.70
-5	$0.75
-4	$0.80
-3	$0.85
-2	$0.90
-1	$0.95
0	$1.00
1	$1.38
2	$1.90
3	$2.63
4	$3.62
5	$5.00
6	$6.90
7	$9.52
8	$13.13
9	$18.12
10	$25.00
11	$34.49
12	$47.59
13	$65.66
14	$90.60
15	$125.00
16	$172.47
17	$237.96
18	$328.32
19	$452.99
20	$625.01

<3>

It is one half of all the IC in excess of regional Pop

changed to

It is all IC in excess of regional Pop

The reasons for these changes:
1. The concurrent costs were a limiter we put in place to replace the BP-based N3 limit. We did not remove it after Pop:IC limits were added as they did not seem to be an issue at the time.

Clearly, it is too great a limit on our collective research ability.

2. The year difference formula was thrown in at first suggestion without too heavy consideration since it would be balanced by the concurrent cost escalation. Since the latter is being removed, this needed to be reworked and balanced.

As of now, tech 15 or more years old costs the same as simple tech digestion. Techs being researched 5 years ahead of time are 5x more expensive. Things 10 years ahead of time are 25x more expensive.

3. The "divide-by-two" portion of the Pop:IC limit seems to have broken everyone's research budget, so we'll go with it's uncorrected formula.

[snip]

For those of you who just want to plug the formulas into your spreadsheet, here they are.

Cell F6 and down the column to the end of your regions.

Code Select Expand

= IF(C6 > B6, (C6-B6), 0)

Delete column O.

Then put this into the new O34. (This should be the column headed with Cost)

Code Select Expand

= IF(M34="n", IF(K34-L34>0, EXP(0.321888*(K34-L34)), 0.05*(K34-L34) + 1), 0.5)

I have attached a revised copy of my spreadsheet if you just want to move your data into it.