Friday, May 5, 2017

Further Notes to Tech-5 and Some for Tech-6

I had meant to start on tech-6 today, but I have yet a small issue to manage first, to keep the reader in line with my thinking.  The gentle reader must please remember that I am creating this as I am going along ~ this felt like the best way to both work out the various elements of the tech-system and the world-building experience at the same time.  This way, the reader can progress with my interpretation, I can identify problems as they arise and are questioned, while at the same time a world can take shape slowly and steadily, showing that worlds can be made from the ground up in a fully rational manner.

In creating a table for tech-6 that would reflect the table I created for tech-5 in the last post, I found that it was clumsy and unworkable.  As such, I've rebuilt the tech-5 table so that it can match what I mean to do with tech-6.  And just so the reader doesn't feel that nothing has been added with this, I'll put up the tech-6 table also . . . and then begin on a map and design for the tech-6 region I plan to lay out.

Here is tech-5 again:


Instead of basing the indications for civilization based on the type of hex, I've instead chosen to base it on the amount of food, hammers and coins.  This is more logical, since different base terrains can radically change how much food and so on there is compared with the type of hex.  Readers who are ambitious can compare a type-7 hex on various parts of the recent Stavanger map with those on the recent Crimean map, where the base hexes are very different.

Now let's have a look at tech-6:


I won't go far into this: the reader can see at once that there are a great many more things to be found and used with a tech-6 culture.  As a reminder, I will point out that tech-6 adds agriculture, animal husbandry, archery, mining and the wheel to the mix.  I will probably need to update this table a bit in the future (I see I've forgotten roads), but I will post it again once I've gone through the process of outlaying the tech-6 region that goes with this.

Finally, I've left out a table indicating bonuses for hex-type.  Here it is:


This doesn't mention the +1 bonus coin for coasts or rivers (intermittent included), though not both. That is really a footnote, but an important one.

Good, that's fixed.  Let's get started.

7 comments:

James said...

I thought 2 hammers actually equaled 3 hammers, or are you dropping that for purposes of signs of civilization?

Alexis Smolensk said...

James,

Do try to remember. When I speak of 2 hammers on the map, I am speaking in BINARY. 2 hammers in BINARY = 3 hammers in BASE TEN. 3 hammers in BINARY is 7 hammers in BASE TEN and 4 hammers in BINARY is 15 hammers in BASE TEN.

I am using binary on the map because drawing 8 or 15 hammers is ridiculous. If I refer to the number of hammers showing in a hex, I am always describing the number in binary. If I compare the totals of one hex to another, I am speaking in base ten.

Got it?

James said...

Okay, so here is my confusion. Let's look at Cai, below (Tech 5, Hex Type 6, 2 Food, 1 Hammer and 1 Coin). I can tell that since it is a Plains Flatland (1 Food, 1 Hammer) with an intermittent stream (+1 Coin) and Hex Type 6 (+1 Food), it has those productions.

So on your chart for Tech 5, should I view it as having 2 Food or 3 Food (while for Tech 5, there is nothing beyond 2 Food, this is a question sure to come up for me in future installments)?

Alexis Smolensk said...

It shows TWO food on the map. 1-1. In Binary. If three food showed on the map, it would be "7" in base-ten numbers.

The chart refers to the number of something as it appears on the map.

Is there a tech-5 possibility of a hex having more than 2 food? Yes, of course. But that wouldn't add any new benefits except more people. For that, you may use the chart under tech-6 to determine how many more people.

I didn't add it on the tech-5 chart because we didn't present any examples in the exercise. Some of this has to be intuitive.



James said...

I wasn't expecting you to show something not relevant to the exercise. You answered my question, thanks.

Alexis Smolensk said...

I'm sorry, James. I just can't seem to find the words to make this thing perfectly clear and I get frustrated with the language, not with you.

Agravain said...

Will using Roman numbers to refer to food / hammers / coins on map help? That way if you say III you automatically think of 7.