Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

[labgnome]

I have some thoughts:

I'd move monster taming to Xenogenetics and make monster fleets something separate from organic ships.

I'd add a "Void" theme that would have the various "of the void" technology applications, the flux/transpacial hulls, transspacial drive core, n-dimension structures and various space manipulation technologies.

I might add a Psyshohistory (a reference to Asimov's Foundation series) theme for governments, policies and influence projects.

[Oberlus]

I'd add a "Void" theme that would have the various "of the void" technology applications

Good idea. I'll try that.

I might add a Psyshohistory (a reference to Asimov's Foundation series) theme for governments, policies and influence projects.

I know several have suggested to include some sort of politics/civics/government theme, which to me seems rather functional (instead of thematic). I'd rather spread those among several themes, the way that hulls, weapons, boosts, etc. are spread among several themes, trying to put together what is thematically similar. E.g., techs that enable mind control could be good for governments that enforce the will of their people; others (which?) could be good for more open-minded forms of government.

[em3]

I can't say I disagree with your points. To be precise, I was imagining light spaceships with crew, not strictly "fighter" type.

Then again, I'm influenced by Empire from the Ashes trilogy, and David Weber is by no means a credible source for realistic space combat (or realistic combat in general, I'm looking at you, hyper grenades).

I think I derailed this discussion enough as it is. I'll try to think of something constructive about the themes now.

[labgnome]

I'd add a "Void" theme that would have the various "of the void" technology applications

Good idea. I'll try that.

If we are still going to have death rays they might also go in the viod theme. Thinking about it if you merged the psionics theme into the void theme you might get another "big" theme.

I know several have suggested to include some sort of politics/civics/government theme, which to me seems rather functional (instead of thematic). I'd rather spread those among several themes, the way that hulls, weapons, boosts, etc. are spread among several themes, trying to put together what is thematically similar. E.g., techs that enable mind control could be good for governments that enforce the will of their people; others (which?) could be good for more open-minded forms of government.

Firstly psychohistory is less about "mind control" and more about making predictions and subtle influence. So more "conventional" government types could go there while You could also include the logistics focus and possibly boosts to the logistics focus. Boosts for defensive troops could also go into the psychohistory theme.

Secondly, I think that leaning more towards functional will be the better way to go if we want to have more categories in the tech tree anyway.

[Oberlus]

If we are still going to have death rays they might also go in the viod theme.

Death rays are actually particle rays. In my weapons proposal, I used the lore of death ray to create the neutron cannon in energy weapons, but its characteristics (short range, single shot, last tier, external slot) on the "kinetic torpedos". In case we we get actual missiles, these kinetic torps would be missiles and then we could have an empty niche for a short range, single shot, last tier, external slot direct damage weapons that would be the death rays. I like the exclusiveness of the psionic theme only having fancy effects weapons, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to give Void theme a direct damage weapon like the death ray, but know that it will be a bit overlapping with other weapons nevertheless.

Firstly psychohistory is less about "mind control" and more about making predictions and subtle influence.

Of course. I'm also a fan of Asimov.
Good ideas you've got here to make it a more diverse theme. We shall have it.

[labgnome]

Death rays are actually particle rays. In my weapons proposal, I used the lore of death ray to create the neutron cannon in energy weapons, but its characteristics (short range, single shot, last tier, external slot) on the "kinetic torpedos". In case we we get actual missiles, these kinetic torps would be missiles and then we could have an empty niche for a short range, single shot, last tier, external slot direct damage weapons that would be the death rays. I like the exclusiveness of the psionic theme only having fancy effects weapons, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to give Void theme a direct damage weapon like the death ray, but know that it will be a bit overlapping with other weapons nevertheless.

I was more thinking of the possibility of void as a larger theme, mostly inspired by the icon The Silent One made. Maybe have 5 or 6 main themes, with multiple branches each? I know that was discussed before, and I don't remember why it was dropped, was it incompatible with the tier system?

[Oberlus]

I was more thinking of the possibility of void as a larger theme, mostly inspired by the icon The Silent One made. Maybe have 5 or 6 main themes, with multiple branches each? I know that was discussed before, and I don't remember why it was dropped, was it incompatible with the tier system?

Ah, I thought you were talking about micro-themes.
For the macro-themes, I think Void+Psionic (separated from Energy) is a great theme indeed (we would have Biotec, Cybertec, Mech, Energy, Crystal and Psionic), and in that case giving some direct damage weapons to that theme is IMO necessary. The Death Ray then would be some kind of psionic/void direct damage weapon.
I'm not working in that until we find a consensus on the macro vs micro themes.
In fact, I'm not working in anything right now because I'm swamped in work after my Easter holidays.

[labgnome]

I was more thinking of the possibility of void as a larger theme, mostly inspired by the icon The Silent One made. Maybe have 5 or 6 main themes, with multiple branches each? I know that was discussed before, and I don't remember why it was dropped, was it incompatible with the tier system?

Ah, I thought you were talking about micro-themes.
For the macro-themes, I think Void+Psionic (separated from Energy) is a great theme indeed (we would have Biotec, Cybertec, Mech, Energy, Crystal and Psionic), and in that case giving some direct damage weapons to that theme is IMO necessary. The Death Ray then would be some kind of psionic/void direct damage weapon.
I'm not working in that until we find a consensus on the macro vs micro themes.
In fact, I'm not working in anything right now because I'm swamped in work after my Easter holidays.

I still prefer the macro-theme, or micro-functional. I'm not sure there is an easy way to come to a consensus. But that's why I suggested the branching themes. As a compromise/middle ground.

[Oberlus]

I still prefer the macro-theme, or micro-functional. I'm not sure there is an easy way to come to a consensus. But that's why I suggested the branching themes. As a compromise/middle ground.

I know your opinion, you already said that
I myself stated that I prefer most the macro themes. But I agreed to try the other approach, and after working on the idea I don't see one or the other is clearly better. Now I'm waiting mostly for Geoff and Vezzra's opinion on this.

[Vezzra]

Now I'm waiting mostly for Geoff and Vezzra's opinion on this.

The problem is these threads are growing so large so fast that I can't keep up with digging through them. It will be a while before I can give some meaningful replies here, especially with my current RL workload, so I have to ask for your patience for the time being...

[Ophiuchus]

I myself stated that I prefer most the macro themes. But I agreed to try the other approach, and after working on the idea I don't see one or the other is clearly better. Now I'm waiting mostly for Geoff and Vezzra's opinion on this.

I am not sure if it is because of cutting micro themes or of specific cutting of micro themes; but I do not see really a lot of structure in the current micro themes proposal. For example: How do I know/remember in which theme(s) do i find the tech for my e.g. tall planet strategy?

With the current macro themes it is easier to remember the taste of a theme. I think this helps also in mixing themes.

[Oberlus]

I do not see really a lot of structure in the current micro themes proposal. For example: How do I know/remember in which theme(s) do i find the tech for my e.g. tall planet strategy?

With the current macro themes it is easier to remember the taste of a theme. I think this helps also in mixing themes.

Good point.
With functional tech branches (i.e. the ones we are not going to use, it seems) I guess this would be easier. With thematic tech branches, the more there are, the harder to remember them.
The "buttons" to select different functionalities (i.e. hiding the rest) would help on this issue, regardless of micro or macro themes, but it will be easier with macro, indeed.

[Vezzra]

I'm sorry I can't keep up with all the discussions, ideas and suggestions that are going on right now. As interesting and fascinating many of these thoughts are you guys are pumping out here, it's too much for me. RL has become even more stressful, and no end in sight. Nevertheless I want to give at least some minimum feedback:

A framework for micro-theme proposals [...]

I've only quickly glanced over your list, and yes, something along these lines is what I have in mind. Not commenting on the particular/specific themes you came up with (as I don't have the capacity to work through them thoroughly enough).

Another thing: please don't get too hung up on my "10-20" themes statement. That's just a random number I've thrown into the discussion without giving much thought to what numbers might actually be reasonable. My point is more that I don't want to have 5-6 themes which are basically 5-6 tech trees of which I'm supposed to pick one to pursue. I want more themes and more flexibility/variation than that. Whether that can be achieved already with only 8 themes, or needs 10 or 15 themes is another question.

[Vezzra]

Government / Social structure.
This is a rather complex subject.
I wanted to consider government stuff when creating these themes. For this I've been reading many threads on the subjects of government, ideology, allegiances, diplomacy, species and empires relationships, etc. Apart from "this is a rather complex subject", the main conclusion is that my brain is going to implode.

Welcome to the club. I had this kind of experience a couple of years ago already, when I digged through these discussions.

Interestingly, trying to keep things KISS can be unexpectedly... complicated...???

[labgnome]

Government / Social structure.
This is a rather complex subject.
I wanted to consider government stuff when creating these themes. For this I've been reading many threads on the subjects of government, ideology, allegiances, diplomacy, species and empires relationships, etc. Apart from "this is a rather complex subject", the main conclusion is that my brain is going to implode.

Welcome to the club. I had this kind of experience a couple of years ago already, when I digged through these discussions.

Interestingly, trying to keep things KISS can be unexpectedly... complicated...???

I mean I have seriously wondered if KISS (at least strictly) will survive the introduction of government and diplomacy. Those are just kind-of inherently complex. Especially if it's going to be more work to make it KISS than to just admit that it will be complex no matter what we do. The question is how much more work do we want to put into something just to make it "simpler" if the "complex" version is perfectly feasible. I do like KISS as a design principle, but I do wonder if we might be starting to hit something like an irreducible complexity when considering modeling these kinds of social interactions. I still think we should always strive for simplicity, or at least conciseness, but simplicity shouldn't be making things much harder for us to do.