The game already has specialized techs for the different factions. I hear the tech trees are going to even be more specialized this time around. I didn't mean other techs than what the game is already going to have.
I know, but until we see GC3 we won't have any solid foundation to base our discussions on.
I was actually talking about the already specialized techs that the game already is going to have, but this could be an option to add techs for sharing. At this point I would rehash what I just said on the previous post. You could add techs that no one has unless shared. I didn't mean that. If this was to hard you could simplify that by having generic techs to add to what I said to be shared to give incentive to other people, or you could work this for every combination of sharing research treaties.
I was concentrating not on race-specific tech-trees, but more on player-specific development of those trees.
For enything else I guess we speaking about same thing, only with different words and approaches.
I hqve to say this went over your head. This is not what I was talking about. What I was talking about is when the soviets stole the B29 amd the F111 from the Americans and built them. When the Soviets designed built the Mig 25 to take down the B 70 bomber. The United states of america built the F15 to take down the Mig25. The Americans built the F105 to take down the Mig15. When the Soviets built the Sukhoi25 to take down the F15.
If I'm not mistaken, F111 and Su-24 (that's the only plane that fits into "copied and build it" description) aren't that related. A9 and Su-25, or B1 and Tu-160, or Concord and Tu-144 seem to have more common than those two.
Su-25 is attack plane, I think you mean Su-27 as counterpart of F15.
And I'm not sure that F15 was created to fight MiG-25 - the latter is interceptor, it could influence the design of the former, but they aren't exact opponents. MiG-23 seems to be more appropriate "predecessor" to F15.
Nor I'm sure that F105 and MiG-15 are direct opponents - one is supersonic fighter-bonber and another is rather small and, to times of Vietnam war, outdated fighter. Su-7 seems to be better "opponent" to F105, and F86 fought against MiG-15.
I'm sure there are more examples of these, but these are all that I can currently remember.
Well, if we talk about copycating, then RAH-66 Comanche's Fantail is basically European Fenestron. Or US Ribbon-Bridge is exact copy of Soviet PMP Bridge. M16 (AR-15 design) could have more common with StG-44 than AK-47.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
T-34, was based on designs of John Walter Christie - as BT-tanks before it. In turn, German Panther tank was an attempt to counter T-34, and its design seemingly has heavy influence from T-34 tank.
TT pistol has a lot of common with Browning designs (including 1911). FN FAL took something from SVT rifle.
S&W Sigma and Glock.
Instead of terrorism I'm talking about ship parts to conter other parts that would not normally be built unless you were hostile towards someone, and was playing the spy game.
Why build something only after you turn hostile? Production will take time, even if we outsource it for "next turn purchase", IMHO it's better to have production running before cannons will start talking, if you know what I mean.
Jist like the cold war between the Soviet union and the United states of ameruca.Certain units would be flagged for other factions being able to do this. What I mean is the Devs would flag this not the players.
Probes, survey parties, and satellites sent to planets of our opponents to perform reconnaissance on them by indirect analysis?
I think this needs to be balanced. Maybe the planet can't build ships while it builds certain parts for ships. You probably have to pay for these parts. Maybe reselling for a higher price. Maybe even making kits of ships. These kits would have the parts that you would dictate. The kit would have to be built by who you sell it to. Probably the kit would be a little vheaper to sell than the full completed ship. This is reasonably doable for an ally that is not advanced enough to make better parts, You could even save up these parts and kits you buy for a rainy day.
Building parts is basically same joint manufacture I meant, maybe to a different scale. In theory nothing precludes race from building engines for a ship which they got from tech that is prerequisiteto build that specific ship. The only problem - game will receive too much components parts and resources inside - we will need to have new part for every (or almost every tech) and track them all.
Kits for subsequent "DIY" kind of assembly on customers' shipyard/manufactures seems fine - you don't order ship, you order parts. Basically same building, maybe a bit longer (or faster - who know what speed completed ship could have, maybe it'll be slower than freighter).
However, dictating whom to sell looks attractive and somewhat repulsive in same time. You can preclude neutral nation from arming your opponent, but you always could be on the other end of the stick, and you may be in situation when third nation precludes your contructor from supplying you.
Sorry but don't agree if your contractor doesn't have to technology then you have to give it to them, or they can't make it.
Ehm. Technology is natural "know how" (that thing works). Blueprints only tell how to assemble that thing without necessary understanding principles of work.
Imagine good backpack. Blueprint is simply knowing you have to fold shoulder strap attachment point 3 times in interlocking S figure, and stictch it twice in both directions. Technology - knowing why you have to fold and stitch it that way.
Or 1911 - why there is lowered and flared ejection port? Why beavertail? Why flat and arched mainspring housing? Why automatic safety?
This was actually more like what I suggested above except I was talking about ships not planetary improvements that you thought I was talking about sabotage. I'm just trying to apply balance by requiring the faction to have espionage. The application you are suggesting are a little different. Maybe instead of being hostile with advanced espionage, This could also be accomplish with an economic treaty. Only for specific units not techs. This would also need to be flagged by the Devs.
Actually I never though you were talking about sabotage. And I'm not sure I was talking about it either. Espionage - yes, sabotage - no. I have no objections over necessity of intelligence, not just simple "fog of war removal" but more sophisticated. I can hardly imagine Hearts of Iron style sabotage in future, for same reasons I can't imagine typical spies sent on "hostile" (different flora&fauna, atmospere, not necessary population) planet to mimic locals. Drengin spy among Yor "doing a robot".
As for the rest, we still need to know what exactly is going to be implemented.
I would balance this buy making this route really expensive. How expensive is up to the developers.
But it still should be affordable to be an alternative to tech trading, and as partial solution in case of deficit of industrial cap.
Don't think that route should be expensive, should we have our own transport. Hiring transport could require payment, or it may be included already.
In case when we do that with allies, I think all fees should be waived. Yes, Communism. Okay, maybe not waived, to prevent exploit, but exchanged (barter of a sort). Still it should be more expedient to use allies than third parties. Unless we try to lure that third party into our alliance, by supplementing them with our funds.
You could have an option to design your own tech paths. You would have all the tech paths on the game to choose from. The paths you could choose would be a limited number, so this would not get out of hand.
You mean you create your own tech tree, just queue, or path of your race specialization during this session as I suggested?
Maybe each faction can pick a limited number of techs from a large number of starting techs.
Aren't we already? Or you want to expand the pool?
The above could apply to tech paths. Where you would pick the paths you can study from a larger number of paths. Instead of picking the paths the paths c=would be cross eliminated by picking other paths first. Once the number of paths picked the other ones would go away.
Now I'm confused. You mean pre-defined "template" that has certain technologies, sort of "willingly limiting ourselves" to certain tech combined in some different ways?
Any part of the quote not mentioned here just means that I didn't have anything to add. Not that I disagree.
The manufacturing ideas got me thinking...
I shortened that part for a bit.
From my point of view, asking someone to help you build something shouldn't be much different from cases where you order buyout. After all, you receive buyouts on next turn.
So I think using similar means with lending/leasing industrial cap should, actually, be cheaper than traditional buyout. The main difference is that you giving money not to some mitrosoft, but to your allies present on the very same map you're playing, or to neutral race you are trying to make your business partner. So money you spent are still within system and you used them to boost your allies' economy.
Leasing could be used mostly as allies support, when you exchange research/manufacturing cap for something else - either manufacturing/research cap, or, simply, money, or some other resources.
Lending could be used to, well, lending a hand to your allies in time of need, but also it could be alternative to traditional "old tech gifting" and "starbase influence "oppression" coaxing of neutral races. You could even agree to lend your services to a third race basically with little income or even with small loss, only to improve standing with race, because you want to make your contract most appealing. Tender of a sort.
Of course, from logical point of view, lending/leasing manufacturing (especially planetary grade) should be long - as you said, you need to ferry your men and resources, unless resources are present, and your man could provide guidance via remote means ("webinar - "how to build your first nuclear silo" for dummies" ). But there is always buyout that is fast. Of course, we could simply consider lending/leasing as "delayed buyouts".