TECHNOLOGY(v2.1)- hosted by SnowFire

[ember]

For modern techs this is a good idea.
For ancient it doesn't make sense.
Did the europeans have a theory of gunpowder or of gravity, to make muskettes or catpults?
This, if implimented for modern times, could slow down the tech speed during modern times, when it gets a bit riddicoulus, but leave it the same in ancient times.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark

[Jon Miller]

hi all

look at my theoretical vrs applications ideas in technology 2.0

even long ago technology was devided into theory and applications

often long ago though, inventors would stumble onto the application and then learn the theory from it

the reason why we don't know (besides the greeks) many examples of ancient discovery of theories is that not much was kept track of, we don't know who made the first applications either but we know arround what time they were made because that it when we first saw them being used

you don't see theories being used (often some other theory is missing, or insight, that makes it so that the applications that could be done with it), also in ancient times people would far more often stumble on the application before the theory

also, we do NOT have a workable theory for FTL now

we have numerious ideas of how it could work but I would classify it under speculations (partly because there are theories that have far more observational evidence that disprove the FTL theories)

a workable theory must keep up with all observations

an example: Newtons and Einsteins theories are both workable

but Einsteins is more workable (works in more situations) then Newtons

many of the FTL theories there is not enough evidence for them to be proved or disproved so therefore they should not included in the game

for Newtons observations (and those of Newtons time) his theory was proved, as was Einsteins (but now we know that that is not completely correct either

please, no Startrek or Smac tech

I am not saying that any FTL theory is false, I'm just saying that none are proved (as Einsteins and Newtons were) at this time and should not be considered to

Jon Miller

[Jimmy]

I never said that I wanted FTL to be included in civ3. I am opposed to any Star Trek tech, as you put, in this game. I was merely using FTL as an example from real life of theory which might some day become reality and in doing so, the truth that some techs are divided into theory and application.

[Jon Miller]

sorry, I've heard some who do wish tech loke that in civ

the truth is that all technology has both theorerical and application components

many theoretical discoveries are part of numerous applications and many applications are based of several theories

Jon Miller

[SnowFire]

Can I ask for some clarification? How, if at all, are your ideas different from 2.11, Concepts vs. Applications? It's not like I'm going to take it out of the list, but if you have any further ideas on how this could be implemented...

[Jimmy]

I just reread 2.11 Concepts Vs. Application and indeed my idea is pretty much the same thing. I guess this will teach me to read those summaries more often to make sure that I am not reposting an idea which is already accepted.

[SnowFire]

I think we have a pretty good list so far, but there's always that one extra refinement to add. Anyone have any new ideas/extrapolations on old ones in the summary? Speak now, or forever hold your peace... the summary's being sent soon.

[Theben]

I'll be by tommorrow or the next day with a long post, so don't get too comfortable...

[Theben]

Post 1, post 2 might be Monday instead of tommorrow...

There needs to be a standardization of how SE effects, Improvements, and Technology interact. These are my ideas on how they'd work:

ECONOMY would be a % that is added/subtracted from trade.
EFFICIENCY: A % reduction/increase in corruption(/waste?) in the city.
SUPPORT: Each city would have a base SUPPORT % (10-20%?). This % is subtracted (added if a - value) from the combined cost of all maintenance of units (units would have production & money support costs, possibly food too). SE choices increase/decrease the % modifier.
MORALE should different than the EXPERIENCE bonuses provided to units. Morale would be a small % bonus/penalty independent of Experience, but does combine with it to influence combat. FE, in SMAC, if you attack from a city w/ a Children's Creche you get +25% to attack, or you can have your % modifier's halved due to low Morale. This is Morale. Experience is the actual level of troop prepardness, training, etc. Experience affects att/def/LASS strength but Morale affects att/def/LASS AND Experience.
EXPERIENCE: Only a minimal bonus/penalty should be possible with this SE. Most experience should come from training (and this only to a point; maybe up to hardened as SMAC?) & actual combat (all the way to elite status). Again, a % would be applied as in SMAC, but it would be in smaller increments.
POLICE represents the controls you can exert on your people. It adds to your
happiness rating after all other happiness factors have been applied, but cannot increase happiness to a positive rating.
GROWTH is affected by happiness and many other factors, including food. It's a % increase/decrease in the city's growth rate.
ENVIRONMENT: A % reduction/increase in pollution output. At certain (+) levels it can add a % to trade from wilderness squares, however a Environment SE choice should also be accompanied by a loss of Economy & Growth.
SECURITY: A % bonus/penalty to enemy espionage missions that affect you.
ESPIONAGE: A % bonus/penalty to your espionage missions.
DIPLOMACY: A % bonus/penalty to your Reputation vs. other civs.
INDUSTRY is so powerful and easily abused in SMAC it should not have any SE modifiers. It may only be modified by technology & City Improvements, as a % bonus(/penalty?) to a city's Resource and Labor output.
RESEARCH: as SMAC, but with smaller % increments.
HAPPINESS as described by me elsewhere.

These are the Civil Effects-CE (plus any others that you may wish to add). Each +1 or -1 correlates to a +5% or -5% change in the total of the related CE, with the exception of Happiness, +/- 2%, because it is so powerful. At certain levels each category may have other special abilities (like immunity to spy bribes; PROBE in SMAC). How they interact:

Social Engineering: As per SMAC; each SE has +/- to several CEs.
Technology: Usually adds +'s to 1 or more CE's, but may penalize some.
City Improvements: Depends on method used. If like civ2, each building adds a large amount to it's CE(s); i.e. a marketplace would add +10 to Economy & Happiness (+50%). If like Star Trek: Birth of the Federation, each building adds +1, +2, or +3 (or -) to it's given category, and you build several buildings of each type in each city (obviously at a lower cost than now).

In the SE screen you could see your civ's overall effectiveness in each category (as SMAC). In addition, each city would need a button that would pop up a window, showing what it's own CE modifiers are.
My reason for posting this here is not to influence people to my SE ideas-there are enough posts in the SE thread as is-but to have other's input on how these 3 things should interact, and because technology has a large influence in this.

[Maniac]

Theben :

Marketplace : +5 Tax (and of course + 50% luxuries)
Library : +5 Research
Courthouse : +2 Happiness, +2 Efficiency
Barracks : +2 Experience
...

About Growth. You seem very fond with the idea that happiness should affect population growth directly.
I think it should affect growth indirectly, that is by an im/emigration system.

A small idea :

In CivX the # science icons needed to research a technology was based on how many techs you already had.
I would change it.
The # science icons needed to research a tech should be based on how many techs you DISCOVERED YOURSELF.
So techs acquired by stealing, trading or goodie huts are not taken in account.
I always hated that trading or goodie huts (things that are supposed to be good) slowed my research by eg 30 turns.
This little modification could solve that.

[loinburger]

Research Inertia: This is in addition to my post several weeks ago stating that different tech fields should be "opposed to," "slightly related to," or "related to" each other, the example being that Math + Physics is "related to" Economy but "opposed to" Agriculture, so that shifting scientists from working on Math+Physics to Agriculture will accrue more penalties to your research than if you were to shift those same scientists to Economy.

Well, here's the idea. If you're researching 5 techs at once (I favor the separation of research into 5 categories as put forth in the summary) with 5 different teams of scientists of varying sizes, then there should be some "research spillage" from one category to another depending on how related the categories are (or the specific techs). So research in a category will help research in related categories. This is to simulate your scientists talking to each other and saying "Hey Bob! Jack here has a flying machine that he's going to bomb the Commies with! I'll bet we can make a crop duster out of it when he's done!"

A sample algorithm which can be used to determine research spillage is (everything is in percentages):
(% of total research being dedicated towards tech field) + ((% of total research being dedicated towards "related" tech fields) x .50 (% of total research being dedicated towards tech field)) + ((% of total research being dedicated towards "slightly related" tech fields) x .20 x (% of total research being dedicated towards tech field)). This means that concentrating all of your research on one end of the research spectrum will cause those techs to be developed that much faster. For example, if Johnnio the Civ Player dedicates 50% of his research towards Math + Physics and 50% towards Economy (related fields, in my example), then he will receive (50% + .50 x .50 x .50) = 62.5% of his research points in each field. But if Johnnio decides to dedicate 50% of his research towards Math + Physics and 50% towards Agriculture (opposing, in my example), then he will receive (50% + 0 x .50 x .50) = 50% of his research points in each field, since they aren't related.

Add to this sample algorithm another multiplier which is determined by which era you're in: ancient, renaissaince, modern, post-modern (if this game goes futuristic, my fingers are crossed). Ancient gets the full research spillage bonus, Renaissaince gets a x.80 modifier, modern gets a x.50 modifier, and post-modern gets a x.10 modifier. This will speed up ancient research relative to future research, and is meant to simulate the fact that the ancients had Renaissaince Men while we have true Specialists, complete with Ph.D's.

ADDITIONALLY (I'm winding down here ) there has been talk about how powerful the Math + Physics research field would be. I have provided a solution which would make MAth + Physics research more difficult: just make every field "slightly related to" or "opposed to" Math + Physics research. In a way this is realistic since most Math + Physics advances will be/are so abstract(Gauss might have figured out imaginary numbers, but it took electrical engineers several centuries to figure out that they represented electricity). That way, there will be little "research spillage" into Math + Physics, and few other research fields will benefit from pumping research into Math + Physics.

[Jon Miller]

Quick post

I think that techs should be slowed based on time not number

Jon Miller

[Maniac]

"I think that techs should be slowed based on time not number"

That will cause the AI to get behind in research even more.

[Jon Miller]

why should we prop up useless AI

make the AI right

they should be able to do it by now

slow down research

I do not want even good players getting to alphacentauri before AD (could be done in either civ or civ2 don't remember which)

Jon Miller

[Maniac]

No, Jon Miller, research shouldn't be slowed down.
It's not the speed of tech discovery that caused players to get on AC before 1 AD (seemed to be possible in both Civ1 and 2.)
I thought, to do that, you had to play ICS.
THAT problem has to be solved.
So, if you really want to slow down research (although that's not the problem), there is an option to do that in SMAC customize rules. Guess the option will exist too in Civ3.

It would be nice to have a way to add/remove techs from the "active list" for a game or scenario, and better handling of modifications to rules.txt (shuffling the order and city improvements/units gained).

I'd want to see something a little more innovative for handling terrain use and improvement. Allow more than one pop unit to use a tile, with some kind of diminishing returns depending on terrain. For hills only one pop unit could farm at the highest productivity, but for a fertile grassland several could. Then Civ3 could actually use a linear population scale for the city size… but maybe I'm asking too much. I think it would be better to have a scale with many steps of productivity (fractional/decimal outputs) rather than the few integer value steps allowed in Civ/SMAC.

I like the idea of Engineers (terraformers) being distinct from population expansion (colonies). However, I disagree with the whole idea of changing basic land types. A possible exception is deforestation, which could result in grassland, plains, or desert (but should reap a substantial bonus of timber/shields in the process). Reforestation should be a tech developed late in the industrial age of technology after huge tracts are denuded and the consequences hit the pocketbook!

I don't see too many examples of modern engineers turning hills into grasslands or mountains into hills, etc. We have strip-mined long ridges of hills, but not enough of them together to result in a "grassland" tens of miles across. We have dug a pit mine two miles wide on the sides of mountains, but that wouldn't turn tens of miles of mountains into hills. The cost of earthmoving is usually the most expensive phase of construction. It would take an expenditure of man-hours and machinery equivalent to all the dams, canals, and roads built in the USA to turn one hills tile into grasslands, much less mountains to hills.

This is from the Terrain thread, but it needs commentary here too. More Agronomy tech would be much easier to implement under a system of fractional/decimal production (well, see Metamorph's post in the Terrain thread for more details). Population density in the linear city size model could be limited by Ag tech. Deforestation would first require either many centuries of multi-citizen use as in Europe (especially shipbuilding), or capitalized (tech reqmt) lumber industry in an environment of unconstrained growth as in the USA.

Reforestation would be a tech advance, and limited to non-arid tiles. Dutch style poulders (shallow sea -> land) can't really be done on tile-scale areas except at truly huge expense. Other terraforming techniques could be developed at ever increasing expense, but never effecting more than one tile as in SMAC raise/lower terrain! In a PW or $cost system, "pouldering" a tile would be ~1000x the cost of simple roads, and to raise/lower a whole tile would be ~1,000,000x. With terraforming units… nevermind.

[loinburger]

FARMING TECH SUGGESTIONS:

Bear in mind that my major is Physics and not History of Agriculture, so it wouldn't surprise me if my ideas require A LOT of refinement. BUT:

Already we have several farming tech suggestions which would add small increases to food production, such as several types of plow, tractors, etc. Also suggested has been two types of crop rotation.

WELL: Remember George Washington Carver and his Peanuts field enhancements? Not only did the ground produce more food (the soil was nitrificated), but it also produced minerals (after all, there's only so many goobers you can eat, and I'd call goober shoe-wax "shields" production and not "food" production). So the proposed tech advance would be called:

I DON'T KNOW.

Again, I'm not an ag major, and don't know what this is called. But I'm sure it's something. Increases shields production and trade in grasslands and plains, but not food.

technophile,
Maybe it would be better to have a tech that turns excess food into some mixture of trade and shields? That would be simpler given the game structure of civ.

[SnowFire]

Just a confirmation that I'm still here, and the summary should hopefully be done tommorow (Today if I'm really lucky). Some good ideas I see here. I'll try and post my own evaluation on them as well.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by SnowFire (edited August 23, 1999).]</font>

[Asmodean]

I first posted this idea in the miscellaeneous thread yesterday, but technophile suggested, that it was probably more appropriate here: (Asmodean)

I have been toying around with this idea for quite some time now (actually since the time that Civ 2 came out) and I would like to see it in Civ 3.
In all the previous civ games, the objective has been to win the game in the modern age (or in the case of CtP in the "Diamond age"). I would like it if in Civ 3, you could define an age where all technological development stops, and then play the game to win in that age.

Think about it. In Civ 2 all units prior to the modern ones are just considered "stepping stones" to something better. Wouldn´t it be a challenge if the best you had were dragoons or cavalry units. The way I think most people are playing the game, they base a lot of their decisions on technology they know they will have, rather than working with what they have got. That is not very historically accurate. I can tell you know, that Eisenhower didn´t consider the possibillity of postponing the assault on Normandy, just because he might gain a technological edge by waiting 2 or 3 years.

It might even help us appreciate the earlier units more, if we had to stick with them, instead of just waiting for something better to come along.

Maybe you could incorporate different conditions for winning the game, based on what age you have defined as the final one. Say you wanted the game to end in the Roman era. That wouldn´t have to mean that you would be playing a short game. Only that after a certain level of technology was reached, no further developement would take place. The game could still go on for thousands of years. A win condition for such a game could be to build a certain wonder, or whatever...I don´t know.

Of course, what ever age you want to be the final one, conquering the world would always count as winning the game.

Anyway, it´s just an idea.

Asmodean

technophile then expanded on this, with a few ideas of his own, that I like, so I will quote them here:

1) All researh after the era you define as the last one should be considered as future tech´s, and as such should add to your overall score.

2) You should be able to research extra benefits for your existing techs, thus making your units grow in strength, as the years progress.

Asmodean

[Jon Miller]

Hi all

this is where discussion of the stopping idea seems to be a good idea (especially for multiplayer)

maybe a starting time as well? (ready made random multiplayer scenarios!)

if you chose to end at the industrial age the game would end at 1900 ad (if it was not won prior to that) and all techs after industrial age tech would be future tech

future tech (by the way and I will add this to technology) should give you random bonuses in that area (for like 100 future techs) as in academic, military, money, ect that would not be new applications but would provide minor bonuses

using civs ages ancient would end at 1 ad (or 1000 ad?) and renaissance would end at 1650 ad (?)

Jon Miller

for all those who are wondering I will try again tonight to summarize my SE ideas (was too tired last night)

[SnowFire]

Summary's updated! Hear that, yin? Everything from the "don't use discover, use develop" to TAS's ideas from Firaxis should be in there. Anything that I "didn't" put in, like the SE effects, wasn't put in becuase it was already there.

Hiya's...Back again...I am not bothered to read all the idea's anymore..It's too much of a headache hehe..But now and then I get a few idea's i'd like to see in Civ3. Here is another...

I was looking at this facts book today, and on one page it had different styles of buildings, I noticed the British had Moats around their Castles, and the Asians had none. But the Asians could have built a moat if they wanted to right? or thought of the idea? They just never did. Or maybe never needed to? I think we should only discover things if we need them. And also...I found I only used frigates for like 20 turns, then I was using tansports. I would like the times stretched, so that it feels like I am actually in the stone age, and in the bronze age, medivial age, etc.

I don't want to breeeze through everything and not get much feeling of each age. Kind of depressing.

Sorry if these idea's have already been said, but just in case. And if they have been said, GOOD!


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Icedan (edited August 26, 1999).]</font>

[Shining1]

An addendum to the tech system, but very useful for overall game balance and diplomacy issues:

Make technology dependant upon trade and infrastructure to a large degree. This makes the explore aspect greatly more important than before, and adds to the builders game. I'm not 100% sure how to work this - perhaps give a sizable tech bonus to economy units earned by trade as opposed to home made economy units.

If possible, eliminate the sliding bar system altogether, replacing it with the social engineering and actual infrastructure. Having to adjust the bar is a pain, but SE changes and building aren't, at least early on.

This would mean that you have two forms of trade, possibly titled trade units and economy units, earning different values for each. For instance, a single trade unit might be worth twice as much as an economy unit, and would thus provide 2 science, 2 cash, and 2 luxuries.

[This will be reposted in the economy thread, but I feel it is important for it to be here as well.]

Tech stealing: This should be difficult, with a good chance of failure, and the tech stolen should ALWAYS be the lowest value (i.e most easily understood) tech available. This automaticially satisfies, and toughens, the prereq requirements.

So if you have tactics at best, not only should it be impossible to steal mobile warfare directly, but it should be difficult working your way up to it as well.

[NotLikeTea]

I recently read the book "Connections" by James Burke (great book, BTW) and it has left me worried about the general Civ tech system.

The overall theme of the book is coincidences, and chaos leading to order. An example: At one battle, Italian citizens would not accept paper money for food. As a result, the soldiers had to forage, and were attacked. When returning to France, an award was offered to come up with a method of preserving foods. One man thought heating and sealing food would stop spoiling, and canned food was invented. Someone else thought that cold air would prevent disease. However, ice was hard to get in the summer time. A method of cooling air was developed (essentially an air conditioner). This led to methods of cooling air far enough to produce liquid air. This lead to a need to store this liquid air, and the vacuum thermos (or Dewar) was invented. This, much later, allowed rocket fuel to be produced and transported, and allowed rockets to become practical.

So, what was this discovery? Was it millitary, because it began with a battle? Was it economic, because the paper money was not accepted? Was it agricultural, because of the method of storing the food? Was it transport related, since it ended with the rocket?

This shows one of the flaws of the Civ model. Things are not invented in a structured manner. No one set out to build a rocket at the beginning of the chain, but there it was in the end. And, no doubt, the same result could have been obtained in a dozen different ways, maybe earlier, maybe later.

Another problem is that regional and cultural differences have a big impact on research. The arab nations had advanced astronomy techniques. This had to do in large part because Islam requires people to pray towards Mecca. When people spread out, they had to discover ways of pinpointing Mecca. They used the stars. In another example, priests in Europe had to pray at specific times of the day. this was easy in the day time, when the sun was out, but difficult at night. they developed the first alarm clock, powered by water, to ring bells at specific times. This led to many inventions.

The problem is that these led to great advances, and they were culturally specific, but it would be wrong to say that one culture or another deserves a research bonus. They were both important, but essentially flukes that led to important discoveries.

This leads to the third problem. The Arabs had advanced astronomy. The European monks had primitive clockwork. China had gunpowder. No one nation discovered all these things, or could have.. Information was traded all the time. America built the first Atomic Bomb, but never could have if it weren't for centuries of discoveries from around the globe. An isolationist nation could never advance, technologically. However, in Civ, every discovery leads to another. Any civ can discover the whole tech tree on their own.

As I've mentioned, the whole Civ tech method is not just flawed, but wrong. Unfortunately, I also don't have a solution. All I can suggest is that the ideas of randomized tech trees, unknown research times, and more importance placed on tech trading would make the game more realistic, and probably more fun.

Whew.

[EnochF]

Yeah, I've been watching a lot of the Connections series lately. The local library has most of the videos available, and my digital cable shows the third series on weekdays. And it really does illustrate the essential fallacy of Civ's tech system. But the fact is, I like how Civ's tech system works, and even though it's based on a handful of faulty assumptions, such as that governmental leaders have control over research, or that specific applications of technology are universal rather than dependent upon culture, geography and a thousand different variables – despite that, I still think it's the closest way to approximate technological progress without sacrificing game playability.

But I would like to see a simple semantic change in the way research is handled. When you choose which tech to research next, the computer should display a message more along the lines of "Our scientists have toured the empire and heard tell of the following scientific principles. Which shall we develop further, your highness?" Instead of "What should we research next," which has always bothered me. Later on, you might see "The following technologies are at the cutting edge, Mr. [or Ms.] President. Which shall we encourage our country to pursue?"

Anyway, I'd hate to see the current tech advance system dumped, if only because the alternative might not be any better or any more fun...
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by EnochF (edited September 05, 1999).]</font>

[loinburger]

NLT:

I agree that the Civ tech system is inaccurate, and have also come to this conclusion from Burke's Connections (although I watched the 10 part BBC series and didn't read the book). The way that I suggested to solve this problem was to have "tech overlap", which I described in a previous post (although my stated reason for having "tech overlap" was to decrease the present dominance of the Science and Math techs, which seem to almost always lead to a new military advance). This, combined with randomized tech trees, would require that a Civ broaden its research horizons if it wanted to pursue one particular goal, be it military, perfectionist, or what have you.

This, combined with an improved tech trading system, should suffice to "fix" the research system in Civ III. I counsel against revamping it too much.

[Diodorus Sicilus]

Burke's "Conections" pieces (he also does a Connections column in Scientific American every month, BTW) and Diamond's book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" are both part of the discussion going on here, namely that position and diffusion were as important to 'tech' advances as anything else. The trohble is, adopting what appears from Diamond's study to be a 'real' model would make the game utterly unplayable as compeyition! Quite simply, most of your agricultural (food) and technological advances will come from ideas or developments generated by your neighbors. The more neighbors and varieties of terrain/climate, the more advances.
Which means if your starting position just happens to be an isolated one, you are out of the game: playing Australian Aborigines or Aztecs to the opponents' Spanish and British.
Therefore, and it hurts me to say it 'cause I'm an historian by profession, for a playable game they're going to have to 'tweak' the historical model instead of adopting it.
Diffusion and the Blind Tech advance is the key, I think: You can only specify an area to research, not a specific item, and a lot of research will be made possible, faster, or slower by your surroundings. For instancfe, if all your cities are ports, researching any advance having to do with ships, fishing, or overseas trade should get a bonus. Some Techs diffuse real easy: once you've seen a wheel in use, it's not had to figure out how it works and how to build one!
Therefore, put a 'diffusion factor' on each advance, as follows:
- Has to be formally taught, bought, or stolen. Examples: Philosophy, Composite Bows, Nuclear Fission
+ can be developed after a lot of work once you have the idea and the enabling techs. Examples: Catapult, Phalanx, Legion, Aircraft, battlefield rockets
++ can be developed as soon as you know it exists or see it. Examples: wheel, stirrup, lance, lateen sail
Add to this the idea (posted over in Civilizations) that Barbarians can trade and act as agemts to diffuse ideas between non-contact civilizations, and I think we can recreate the 'diffusion' of tech and culture without seriously unbalancing the game.
Also, by adding a certain amount of 'free' tech (non researched, gotten through trade or simple contact), we can legitimately make the tech tree a lot bigger and more complex without bogging down the game: tech will come a little faster for everybody on the map than it does in current games, so more choices and advances can be included.
If the choices include Cultural as well as Technical (discussed over in SE thread) then the civilizations will also diverge in cultural peculiarities and distinctions. For example, I got a bunch of Trade advances, my economy goes to Market/capitalism, I develop a Middle Class and turn into a semblance of late Renaissance England, while my neighbor gets lots of agricultural advances, goes Imperial and becomes very like medieval China - both from a city state Greekish start.

[ember]

Decaying Technology:
Require a certain expendature of labs per pop per turn. If you spend less than this the required amount is subtracted from your accumulated. If it goes to zero you loose a tech, but have an (almost) full research pool again. Note this penalizes ICS, because larger cities tend to produce more per citizen. This repreents the expendature on education required to keep your civ fully literate.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark