The "Where's my tech?" Bug

[cbn]

I am very early in a MP game and wonder if I may have a bug. I was expecting my very first tech to be researched this turn but nothing happened!! I went to the F2 screen which shows that I have a tech cost of 19 and accumulated labs of 19. The bar at the top shows up that I have "0 turns" until the next tech.The tech should be available now!!!

The tech would have been really handy since it was Centauri ecology and I wanted to switch to and rush formers. Now I will get them a turn later (I hope) , lose more minerals in the switch and I do not know what will happen to the tech contribution of my first base (I assume they will be lost). All the amounts are small but I am the Hive and in the early game EVERY ec and tech point is precious.

I have never seen this before . At this stage I have no tech enhancements so all "Labs" are integers. I'm assuming that I will get my tech next turn but even a 1 turn delay from my planned date screws up my plans. Has anyone seen this before ? Is there a known reason or cause?

[Misotu]

Yes, I have seen this before in MP, on quite a few occasions now and yes, it's a real bummer. I'm trying to remember why this happens, and failing miserably, sorry. I do remember seeing it and thinking "Aha!" once - as in all became clear - but I just can't quite recall ...

[Deimos]

I've also seen this very frequently in several recent SP games that I have been playing. I have no clue as to why it happens...sorry. But I do feel your pain.

[Sikander]

I wonder if this is due to the way that tech costs are figured. As I recall, the further you are behind the easier it is for you to research. Perhaps other players on their turns successfully researched techs, which reduced the cost for you. This could be a slight bug where your cost for a tech is figured after your base production rather than just before it. Thus your target for the next tech was still the one calculated on the previous turn, and was updated in the current turn after your tech was totalled and compared to the target value. CBN, did you check the value (RPs needed for next tech) on the previous turn, and if so was it the same?

[Misotu]

Good though Sikander ... it's ringing vague bells with me. If this is not the whole explanation, I bet it's a solid and large part of it ...

[mark13]

That was the gist of the explanation given to me when I asked a few months ago, but I'll admit to not being totally convinced by this. I know they have done extensive tests on this in Civ2, where they proved it to be the case exactly - but from what I can recall in SMAC, the tech costs are pretty much fixed.

[cbn]

Mark13

Thats the problem I have with the "others get techs and reduced your tech cost" solution. During research of a given tech the players tech cost is unaffected if he steals or trades for even multiple techs. It would seem very odd that the game would recalculate tech cost based on other players tech levels and not on your own. Also it does not seem to fit with my experience (have not tested this BUT). I usually watch tech cost fairly closely so as not to waste tech points. I am pretty sure I would have noticed a tech cost decrease. To date I have seen nothing but a constant tech cost once the figure is established for that tech upon commencement of research.

In the game in question I also thought that I knew that I was getting the tech on the turn. (ie the tech cost reading on the previous turn was unchanged from the present turn) Unfortunately, I am not CERTAIN of this but I did have a note to myself to switch to formers .

[johndmuller]

I would guess that there is some rounding or integer arithmatic involved in the labs calculation; presumably there is because part of the the labs output is a percentage of the energy production and labs may also be increased by some percentage if you have any lab enhancing facilities (beyond the Bio Lab which gives you a flat +2 labs increase).

The routine that produces the data for the F2 screen may not use exactly the same algorithm as the one that determines whether or not a breakthrough actually occurs. In your example, cbn, perhaps your labs production is 18.6 and it is rounded up to 19 by the F2 routine, but truncated to 18 by the breakthrough routine. It could be even more insidious if the two routines are both trying to round but go opposite ways when dealing with the .5 values - which you could easily get with an odd number amount of energy production and a 50/50 econ/labs allocation, especially early in the game with no lab facilities beyond Bio Labs.

I suppose it is also possible (but I imagine you would have noticed) that your production profile might have changed after you looked at the F2 screen, perhaps by something triggering a reallocation of workers at a base.

[cbn]

It is not lab enhancing facilities since this occurred on the very first tech as the Hive in 2110. I did not change SE allocations or settings, I did not rearrange workers. In 2109 I must have seen that I was due the tech on the next turn since I had a note to switch to formers on my game sheet. IN 2110 it shows 19 tech points and 19 required and without enhancement facilities there can be no rounding of the output.

Also johndmuller said

------------------
It could be even more insidious if the two routines are both trying to round but go opposite ways when dealing with the .5 values - which you could easily get with an odd number amount of energy production and a 50/50 econ/labs allocation, especially early in the game with no lab facilities beyond Bio Labs. "
--------------------

Have I missed something major here? At a 50/50 allocation with 3 energy produced, I have seen 2 Labs and 1 economy ( at 60/40 and 70/30 you would likely get the same values) but I have never seen split values. Turn after turn the F2 screen reflects 2 Labs while the energy reserves increases by one. I stand to be corrected but I do not think that the SE allocation alone will ever, by itself, create non-integer allocations to Labs and Economy. I can also discount innefficiency since I was running the 50/50 allocation.

[johndmuller]

cbn, I was merely offering the possibility that the calculations behind the F2 screen and the Breakthrough logic might not be identical, leading to occasional discrepancies (for example in the way they might address those close calls).

[cbn]

Johndmuller

I understood that part of your post and it is entirely possible that some different equation is used. But here I knew of nothing that would require rounding. On every indicator I know I should have exactly 19 tech points but it is possible that the cost is fractionally above 19.

I just did not understand your 50/50 allocation, non-integer Lab production comment. My response was not meant in any way but inquisitive. I have been constantly suprised by nuances of the game in areas I thought I understood. If a base producing 3 energy with no enhancements and a 50/50 allocation actually split the energy 1.5 to each, then I misunderstood something about the game. (and early game allocation could be used to more effect).

I have been suprised so often by this game that even basic assumptions get thrown for a whirl. Have you noticed in your games this fractional division of odd energy production? Would you also get fractional outputs for a 50/40/10 allocation.? Just asking?

I am curious enough that if you continue you assertion I will test this. It should be easy enough to start a game and use a 3 energy base. Assuming 2 Labs and 1 energy in the city report, it should be easy enough to check whether lab production and energy increase are equal or whether Labs collected would be twice the energy credits collected.

[johndmuller]

cbn, I don't think we have any disagreement, just a little communication trouble (sunspots?). I did not mean that the final amount of labs would be a non-integer, but that some intermediate value(s) in the calculation would be non-integer and would be rounded/truncated to an integer for final use (perhaps using slightly different logic in different parts of the program). For one of your examples, the 3 energy allocated 50/50 would have an intermediate value of 1.5; the calculation presumably rounds or truncates this to either 1 or 2, assigns it to either labs or econ and subtracts from 3 to get the other. If you also have a Psych allocation, it would have to calculate that somewhere in there too.

It's easy for little errors to pop up in programs with both integer and non-integer values being tossed around; sometimes annoying things like deadlines and bosses preclude tracking them down when they have only a minor impact.

One would guess that the program simply adds up the labs from all the bases to make the F2 screen, but maybe not; perhaps the "governor" is in charge of making these reports or deciding when breakthroughs happen? Perhaps these calculations are only supposed to be "good enough for government work"?

[cbn]

Ok Johndmuller, I guess i misinterpreted what you meant there.


To finsh my little saga, The turn finally came around to me again (5 days but that is another rant for another day). I got the tech and not only that, my "tech accumulated" for the next tech reflects ALL the Lab points I earned on the turn (only 2 but hey). Now I "know" that the you "lose" all the tech points in excess of what is needed to make the discovery from the base putting you over the top but here I lost nothing. The obvious inference is that no Labs were needed to be added the already accumulated tech and leaves me with the mystery of why it happened in the first place LOL.

So at the end of the day, "all" I lost was the 1 turn delay in rushing a former (ie 1 turn of turn advantage for the rest of the game.)

As an aside, my tech cost for the next tech (my third overall) has stayed at 19 points.

[Darkstar]

Some things to keep in mind...

the F2 screen is inaccurate. It doesn't even properly reflect the actual labs you are getting a turn. It's been proven that punishment spheres and other things tend to throw it off. Although, that early in the game, I would hope it was working for you.

Second, once the cost of a tech is fixed, I haven't seen it change. But the techs known DO play into the amount you need for your next tech figure, and how much you need to get the next one. Early on, it shouldn't throw too much of a curve into the matter.

Third, Firaxis often uses different algorithms to do the same. Since the F2 screen certainly isn't accurate compared to the actual labs earned a turn, I would expect differences between what is "predicted" and when you get it. It sucks when you are plotting stuff out like that, but what are you going to do? It's SMAC.

[Gregurabi]

Here's another data point. Multiplayer game, as Peacekeepers. In M.Y. 2104, I checked the F2 screen and observed that I had accumulated 15 research points, whereas the cost for a new tech was 14 points. I was 1 point over the requirement.

This was my first tech other than Biogenetics (started the game with that). I had no facilities at all.

On the next turn, I checked F2 again and saw that I had accumulated 4 research points. This was not the correct value -- I should have had 7 points, if all of my bases had contributed their full science output.

Since my HQ produced 3 science points per turn, it appears that the following sequence occurred:

1. Start of turn: research pool full. Begin city upkeep.
   
2. Process HQ: 3 points added to research.
   
3. Check for full research pool: yes. Give tech, prompt for next tech and flush research pool.
   
4. Continue city upkeep. Next 2 bases processed, 4 points in research pool.
   

[MariOne]

I'll add my .02 €.

DS, I thought that you yourself had corrected some presumptuous assumptrions of mine, stating that in some cases the tech cost may change underway.
It's rare to be seen, but 2 years after that thread at ACOL I have indeed gained few experiences about that out of direct observations.

___
First .01 €, it seems to be pretty conclusive that before you discover your first techs (that is, the first one which actually comes out of your LABS), the tech cost is NOT fixed.
This means, if for instance you get a tech from a Unity Pod BEFORE you discover your first tech, your tech cost is (or rather "may get"...) *immediately* recalculated. The same if you meet someone that early and trade your factional initial techs.

__
Second .01 €, I've recently seen in a pbem just past M.Y. 2150, where I have the EG since few years, the tech cost of another faction drop down slightly in the middle of his tech stint.
The guy had a high tech cost as at some moment he was leader in techs. Due to Council called, diffuse contacts, many artifacts linked, field divided in two warring alliances which immediately share all the techs except to that guy because he's exposed to the other side probes (my probes...), all the other factions gained 4-5 techs each in 1-2 years.
The guy suddenly found himself as the one with the least techs in the game (from an in-game PoV, his Pactmates will be updating him at first occasion...).
When I have the EG I keep tables with the main game parameters for all factions, and I store every turn's table in a .xls.
I observed his tech cost drop down over that turn, offhand I'd say about 2-3% (20ish labs over a 800+ tech cost). In that turn he did not receive any tech, nor change his research goal, and he's far from his next discovery.
___
Icing on the cake, I didn't analyse it systematically, but I recently noticed that (at least in the early game), when you pop a Unity Pod a few labs (1-3ish) will be accumulated too.
It might not have been you case here, but you could have begun your turn with 13 labs out of 14, popped a pod and got to 15 labs accumulated out of 14 needed. Unfortunately, in midturn that event does not trigger the check for tech discovery.

[Gregurabi]

Ah...! The pod-popping could certainly explain it. I had no idea that you got a handful of lab points in addition to the other effects. That's definitely something I'll bear in mind from now on!