I think a tech flow chart would be nice (i.e. if there isn't one already of which I'm unaware). The speed of the games is not conducive to "trial and error" learning and the tech is starting to get quite involved.

Some folks may be of the opinion that it isn't realistic to know in advance what you have to discover
but "all the games do it".

I would guess the reason the tech is "flow charted" is to keep players from losing interest taking too long to learn what they need to improve their performance.

TR

Last Edited : Wednesday, 5 January 2005 - 11:49

err... there is one somewhere, Ive got a coppy of it

its in the manual and theres a link through mogs tutorial on the home page

Wow that was one nasty cold I had and still do not to alibi
but Ok thanks

I honestly haven't ever seen it but if the new version and new additions are not updated maybe that should be done.

PS:
Sorry I still don't see what I mean in the manual but admittedly under the link
"click here for a great newbie guide" which admittedly I haven't ever done because I'm not a "newbie", I did find a link that points to another link entitled,

"Technology Tree" by "Mog" apparently

and yes inside that link is exactly what kind of "technology flow chart" I mean.
My compliments to "Mog"
but I truly haven't ever seen that link until now.

I'll close this soon but a veteran I recall messaged me once asking me the quickest way to build catapults I recall and I could only answer that it was an upgrade after you are able to build rams.

Anyway I'll leave this open a while for some comments but for those who haven't seen the link mentioned here IMO they should definitely take a look at it.
Again my compliments to "Mog"
but I'm still interested to know where the information for that link was found because I haven't ever seen it before.

TR

PPS:
My apologies because the link to medieval technology in the manual does give a better listing than I thought
and every time I view it now I seem to find something I didn't see before like the requirements for the various technologies are given also;
but IMO it still doesn't quite show the flow like the link
"Technology Tree" provided by "Mog"

TR

Last Edited : Wednesday, 5 January 2005 - 17:41

I just pointed at the Tech tree. I didn't write it and I don't know who did. Anybody know so we can give credit? It does need an update. I've thought about making a different one, perhaps I will now.

it was made by a player named logickal a long time ago. Soon after making the tree he disappeared from WOL, never to be seen again. An updated tech tree would definitely be welcome.

Thanks "Mog" and "Gfly"
Now I feel whole again.
Seriously though "Mog" I wasn't sure but I did assume you had done the "tech tree".

I'd like to say though that IMO the "bold face white type" against the "black background" in the manual does seem to cause quite a "glare" that seems to tend to cause my eyes to look away rather than read what's there and I'm not a "drug user" but possibly not getting enough sunshine during the winter months.

Also I think the downward expansion of the "tech tree" is not as natural as a "left to right" expansion but either method allows continuation to another page without awkwardness.

PS:
Thanks again "Mog"...
your honesty is a light in our world...
still filled with much darkness.

TR

yes hello TR...im feeling a little left out

Last Edited : Thursday, 6 January 2005 - 05:34

Yes you did good too "thefunklub"
but can I call you "funky"?
PS:
Thanks for all who comment...
good or bad...
opinions are welcome,
but it does get exasporating sometimes to defend an idea;
So no offence against anyone is ever intended here (i.e. by me at least).

TR

Last Edited : Thursday, 6 January 2005 - 15:18

funky is good with me

im not sure who you may have offended man but im sure no one is holding anything agaist you

Well we have had some debates even here in "Suggestions" without getting offensive with each other but I'm just saying that it just shows how interested we are in helping to keep the game a great game;
So by all means keep making relevant comments about suggestions, but no I didn't mean there was anything offensive said here.

I'll close this now though because we do have more than I had originally thought we had for research guidance.

TR