So, finally we come to characters, something that´s was brought up again recently. With characters we run into the same problem as with war-making, that of time-scale. On a time-scale of 10-20 years per turn the usage of characters is severely limited, because they´d come and go too fast to be any fun. We have two solutions to this (apart from the unrealistic one of allowing characters to live for Very long), the first is where you only get characthers occassionaly, they live for some time then die and you´ll get new one shortly after. The number of characters would be limited to perhaps 2-8 per player at each time. The second solution is to use Dynasties. An idea on how to use Dynasty is that when a player gets one (hires it, ‘builds’ it, discovers it, whatever) he attaches it to either one class or a specific province. We could even allow players to choose a ruling dynasty, if they want. Each dynasty would have numerous attributes, such as organization, financial strength (skills), military skills, innovation, and so on so all af them have their strengths and their weaknesness. Now, in time (two to three generations, sometimes longer) a active dynasty begins to ‘degenerate’, i.e. its stats begin to weaken until its benefits are almost none. When this happens players can try to remove it and replace it with a new and vigorous one. This can of course be tricky if the dynasty is in the ruling seat, so some cunning is required on the part of the player. The number of dynasties active would vary (this is set at the beginning of the game), maybe from 1 to 5. If we want to get very adventurous we could allow dynasties to evolve like cultures and religions, amalgating with other dynasties and so on. One final word, even if we do include characters/dynasties in one form or another I think this should always be an option only, not requirement. So even if it´s fun to contemplate this maybe it´s best to shelf it for awhile and finish the core rules first. But having said that I´d still want your general opinion on this.

Okay, but I see it mainly from the atmospheric point of view where characters always have been much of an improvement (give you the idea of "my friends are with me").

In game terms, characters aren't much more than special unique unites with some special, "character-only" attributes (morale, leadership...).

As for the realism question: We have to simply bite the bullet here - let's face it: Not only is the concept of the player being an undying leader through the milennia QUITE a strain of realism, the maintenance of the same units through centuries is, as well. Clearly, if you build a phalanx in 2500 b.C. you don't expect it in 500 a.D. to consist of the very same soldiers, do you? So in effect you have a "soldier dynasty" here. Why not simply assume the same for characters?

First of all I'm with Dominique on the basic point that we just have to go with game balance here, and somewhat ignore reality. One factor that would make these things more palatable is if we just go by Turns and forget Dates. ( Or alternatively, do this until we get to the point that we might have one turn = 1 year and arbitrarily call this 1800 or something. ) This helps with the ridiculously slow movement rates for military units problems also.

I kind of view characters the same way I do tech breakthroughs. Utilizing fleeting opportunities should be a challenge and adrenaline rush for the player. Over time these 'good breaks' will even out, but the skillful player will be able to exploit the transitory advantage to the fullest. This would make enormous Alexandrine conquests possible if:
1) the civ is well-managed at the start
2) the technology and/or character is at the high end of the bonuses
3) the neighboring civs are relatively weak

And of course the story telling aspect is very strong. They will talk of Alexander long after he is gone. When the history of the civ is told this period will resonate with the player.

The character's exact advantages shouldn't IMO be made explicitly known to the player. Only, fe, that Alexander is a Very Good general. Along with their obvious talents the characters should also have some hidden flaws or risks. We can enumerate these later, but a good general might be likely to expire 'early', or in one out of 10 battles be completely worthless, or have political ambitions... These limitations should still leave the character a clear net bonus to the player, but will increase the storytelling aspects of the game.

Whether there be 5 per game, or 5 running continuously is a balance issue we need to address. I'm personally in favor of a light touch here, with there typically being none (say 2/3 of the time) or one character on-the-field at a time. But this one we could even adjust easily when feedback from playtesters come in.

Grr moron brother cut me off, oh well I forgot what I was saying. Basically dynasty control should be important. You might have to play them off against each other to survive troubled times. They might have lands of their own or you could strip them of their lands and force them to serve you in the capital.

They should be limited in time though, to reflect time passing, to balance the game, and make it interesting to see what players will do. That is do you try to "ride" your great general to big military victories, or plod along, squandering the talent, but staying safe?

One idea I have is that there might be certain "free" characters who come along at random for a limited amount of time in any area of the game, government, military, science, arts, religion (could be destabilizing), or commerce. They are not the result of planning or of the factors I'll describe below.

Maybe this really is the way to go: Remember how important it could be to micro-manage every single tile in CIV2? At the beginning of a game, this could easily decide if you lateron had a big or a GREAT empire. But as soon as you had 10 or more cities, this kind of micro-management became hard to do, nevertheles was feasable and thus (for those longing to "max out" their civ) a tough job to do.

If Clash features characters, these could be very well used to reduce the need for micro-management. I imagine the following:

In 600 b.C. my Roman Empire grows in a way that al of today's italy belongs to it. Up to this point I micro-managed a s much as possible, trying to make the best out of it. Now, the program informs me of the fact that my empire has grown too large to be effectively led by just one alone; I had the choice between receiving disadvantages for sticking to an ineffective system OR I could choose amongst the nobility a provincial leader. From this point, I WON'T be able to do most micro-management in that province, since the provincial leader would see that as offensive behaviour. As for my capital / core empire, I'm free whether to choose a vizir or not (a leader should have some direct influence on his capital).

that's more or less exactly what I had in mind. When I remember my latter CIV2 games, I never could resist to micro-manage every least bit, knowing that it really makes a difference. On the other hand, turns took an eternity then...

Now, let's say you can "replace" a gouvernor character by micro-manage things yourself, but you can only replace ONE of them at any given time (simulating the fact that even the ruler can only be present at one place at a time), then the player would have the opportuity to do micro-management on his own, but this task would be restricted. On the other hand, even deciding WHICH province needs to be looked after might become a strategic decision.

The leader In Fact can't be everywhere at once, so it is not realistic to have them manage transitory minutae for a province that they will probably never visit. The government model in fact enforces that to some extent although we don't have the exact details yet. Here I think that realism and good gameplay go together. Of course if the player Wants to do this, we'll have to let them for gameplay reasons. But the player will still be managing by hand a province that has some problems and limitations associated with it being far from the central authority.

Now, while micro-managing a SMALL empire might be fun, the game shifts towards a larger scale lateron, so the tasks of the leader should grow with his realm - but in order to keep the game playable, there must not simply be a "more" of tasks, but a shift.

In the beginning, you (as a ruler) have to care for the crops, for the one city you have (or the first few). Lateron, a careful balance between the different provinces might become more important. I think, a simulation of the delicate balance between ruler and the upcoming nobility might be quite challenging, don't you think?

So, in the later game, one might get more and more distance between the ruler and the "daily tasks" (as in reality), while managing one's subordinates becomes more and more important.

The concept of some strategy (more tactical) games of a "chain of command" might play a role, too, so a leader might give empire-wide commands which are in fact realized only to a certain extent, depending on how able / loayal the gouvernors are.

The point is you don't need characters for this. Characters should be Very special Rare individuals, that add Fun to the game. If they become too numerous they will IMO become yet another micromanagement chore that has to be done because of the design, but that the player derives little joy from. I do a fair amount of micromanagement when I play Civ2, but its pretty joyless since most of it could be done Automatically with either a better game design, or better AI to implement my decisions. I think we Must avoid this sort of thing in Clash.

on the one hand, you are right about characters not becoming too numerous... on the other hand TOO few characters could definitely make the game unbalanced - why?

If a character is to be something special, it must have abilities / bonuses. Now, if a player gets few characters or loses them quickly, he is at a heavy disadvantage if these specials are too good. But make them not good enough, and characters become uninteresting.

I think we could wonderfully combine the concept of characters and governours: Give the player X + 3 characters, X being the number of provinces. Now, since he MUST assign one character per province (to handle the province efficiently, else there will be malus points) but one (because that's the province the ruler looks for personally right now), you only have 4 characters available for "roaming the land", i.e. leading armies or have a function as special engineer etc.

What's the advantage of this solution?

For one, you don't have abstract gouvernors, but "living" characters, letting the game come to life a bit more.

Second, you can swap your guys around, setting each on the position you deem best. This way, you could e.g. put a not-so-able gouvernor into a province that's not that critical at the moment.

The player is simply a bit more flecible here, since he always (from a certain point on) has a pool of characters, some stationary, some "roaming" - look at it as garrisons and field armies.

It's a bit more balancing, too - it's not THAT bad a catastrophe if one character dies, since you always have some more, just the choices are reduced.

Of course your concerns are valid as the number of characters becomes small. And I suspect we each have somewhat distinct notions about what makes a game fun. But I think our major philosophical difference is the texture characters can bring to the game. Both views are "right" its just a question of which fits better in the game, and with respect to our potential market. I'll present both from my point of view (YMMV):

I'm viewing characters primarily as an excitement (and to some extent a gambling-like element) that can somewhat upset the established equilibrium for a limited amount of time. Pushing the player out of "a rut". The downside to this are the points you raise. Characters will be "lumpy" there-or-not-there play factors, kind of like wonders are in civ. With the limitation that these wonders usually are taken away after something like 15-20 turns. There is a significant danger we can leave the player feeling cheated if a character doesn't show up when really needed, or expires too soon.

As I percieve it, your view aims to give more of a real-people feel for the player at the top of the civ. This would give the player a better feeling of connection to the civ, and manging the 5-15 "top individuals" in the civilization. By successfully managing his diverse underlings, and putting them in the right places to further his aims the player will gain significantly. This is certainly a valid way to go towards pulling the player into Clash. The downside of this is the charcters become a business-as-usual sub-game IMO.

If we didn't have a new sub-game in Clash with respect to the Civ genre to draw people into, I would be more open to your suggestion. But we have both internal politics and culture for the player to manage as unique things. The forthcoming government system already should have some personality-type effects in it. It should also give the player a visceral feel for the peoples wants, and let him or her try some "power politics" moves. We had also discussed some time ago using class "representatives" to put some flavor in the internal politics sub-game.

On the question of which of our models should be used for characters, or if some sort of fusion is possible, I think we just need to wait and see what others have to say, and judge which way to go when we have some more information on the reception of our various ideas.

I see your point, af if there's something that has been decided long ago, I'm certainly not the one doubting it - go ahead!

But IF there are characters to be included, I simply feel it would be the most natural way to use them for the "offices", as well.

And, yes, you are right, they'd become "business as usual" - but which of the game aspect won't, in the end? The question IMHO is not wheter the player gets accustomed to characters, it's whether he gets accustomed and still has fun with them.

My fear only is that you are obviously a number-addict - all *I* want to do is push those numbers and statistics a bit more in the, well, in the roleplaying direction..

If there is one civlike game I love as much as Civ, it's Master of Magic (strangely, it's much less known than Master of Orion), and this is mainly because of the characters involved... and, ah, yes, because you can "customize" all of your units (and characters) by giving them countless combinations of magical spells. In fact, I haven't seen a game with such a number of individual / city / worldwide modifications as this one. If you haven't played it, you should definitely have a look at it, to get an idea of this.

Seriously now:

Maybe I don't have the right idea of a "province" - what I had in mind was that even in a large empire your provinces wouldn't be more than, say a dozen MAXIMUM, and so the numbers of characters would be.

Now, you say something very, very important, namely that "characters shouldn't do something the system is capable to do without them". And I say "YES - they SHOULD!". I can easily explain why, having taken the responsibility for the "Game atmosphere" thread in the "List for Firaxis" forum: Because most players do not like "the system"! "The system" is a black box, a nothing, it is sterile and, in short, NO FUN. So simple. "The system" are numbers, statistics and mechanics. A character isn't anything else but it feels different.

As for the need of micro-managing those characters: If well balanced, those "gouvernor characters" shouldn't need any more care than the provinces do anyway. What's left are those "roaming characters" - few enough, I think.

Last thing: Character advancement. Good point - and, true, big part of the fun with characters in MoM was in their advancement (and equipping them with spells / magic items... I loved that Avatar guy who could take out 12 sky dragons ).

Hm... didn't we agree on the idea of characters symbolizing clans / dynasties? So, "advancement" could simply mean growing influence... and even bring in the nice topic of the ruler having to keep his strengthened vassals at bay. For me, a fascinating idea. Convincing, realistic, I think.

How about if there are a limited number of characters in your civ, some are with you, but some are opposed to you. Others could be swayed either way... Now There is storytelling.

I am proposing that we put characters "in charge" or representing, the classes already in the government model.

A while ago when discussing the government system on the old BB, Glak mentioned a character-like function for some of the classes in the government model; upper classes, military, religious, labor, minorities, etc. The original post is here if you want to look at it, but it doesn't quite have the complete flavor of what I'm proposing.

http://www.sitepowerup.com/mb/view.asp?Action=Reply&BoardID=103692&Reply=24

Instead of reading newspaper headlines about this class is happy, or this one is rioting, their representatives would deal with you. (if you choose, player can always put this on autopilot) As Glak said in his post you can try to buy the class off, repress them, or sick another class on them. Perhaps even exhile the character, leaving the class without its leader. Does anyone remember the brothers Gracchi from Rome, pushing for agrarian reform and power for the people? They Could Be a Character.

These characters would be in addition to the military and thinker... ones we have been discussing. They would add "texture" to the government/class system. FE the player would like to disenfranchise the peasants now, while there is a lull in the fighting with the hated Bighatwearers, but unfortunately the people have a strong leader now, and open rebellion could break out if we try. Should I try to discredit him? Bide my time 'till he's gone, etc. These characters would be the power-politics analog of the great general. Except these would sometimes be incompetent too.

Yes, it would be for the whole civ. Giving something like 6 characters for the political system and maybe 1-2 elsewhere per civ. (although we could even give the player control of this number since once the AI and interface to handle one character is there the rest is not too hard) Also one could change the "power range" of characters with a setting. If you don't want any Alexander-class conquerors you could just set it low. On a very low power setting the class representatives would be mainly just a "flavor" interface between the government system and the player.

Certainly each of us has a different vision of what CLASH should be. We all can try to influence it, but in the end Mark is the "Sid" of this game

You are right that those "everlasting dynasties" aren't that believable. Then again, how realistic is one single leader through the milennia? For me, realism is dispensable if dropping it adds to the fun. The thing is IMHO not to create realism for it's own sake. The character thing is something many players WANT to accept, since it's simply fun - people don't argue things they like. Ever herad of someone complaining that the way the High Council is talking to their emperor wasn't realistic? There you have it.

But, nevertheless, who says that those dynasties should be immortal? Personally, what I always liked best in civlike games were the hard decisions - the ones that really hurt and make a difference. So it could be one tough job to actually kill a dynasty growing too strong because it endangers my own power. And here Mark's idea comes in...

Mark:

I've been looking in on your Atmosphere thread because I'm Atmosphere-challenged I do agree it is Important.

I don't remember the specific post, but I may have read it and stolen your Idea! Anyway, its here for us to discuss now.

On dynasties, IMO the natural course is for them to grow and then decay... I think that should be the case for "class" dynasties (families that represent upper class etc), although you'll never know when its going to happen that they will have renewed vigor, or fade completely away.

One caution on the Atmosphere... I agree its important for many, but I always have turned all that stuff off. I think a lot of people do That also. Some want numbers in the interface, others don't. I think we have to try to satisfy who we can while still keeping the game thematically whole. Thats what we need to strive for. How we keep the numbers people and the no-numbers people happy with the same interface is one of our many challenges.

The Dynasty: I really like this idea, and it DOES mirror historical reality. But almost without exception, they do not improve over time. A dynasty is typically started by an extremely dynamic character (Genghis Khan, Thutmose III, Augustus, etc), and although some of his successors may come close to his attainments, inevitably the dynasty weakens and may even contribute to the downfall of the entire civilization. Some may not collapse completely, but usually that's because a vibrant new dynasty takes charge.

So, how is this implemented within the structure of the game? Not as characters, but rather as overlay on top of the existing civilization values. Here's what that means. If the civ's total production output is 100, then the dynamic new dynasty will add "X" amount to it. And so on across the economy. Perhaps a value is also added to the attack and/or defense values of each military unit. Now here's where it gets interesting. Over time, as the dynasty rots, these adjustments will gradually change from positive to negative. Leave a dynasty in place for too long, and it WILL kill your civilization. I haven't given a lot of thought to how a player initiates and eventually replaces a dynasty, but it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some really entertaining ways of doing this.

Characters: This is a completely different game mechanism. Personally, I think they should be individual "units", but not in the normal Civ2 sense of the word. Rather than a unit per se, I conceive of these as Leaders, who add attack and defense values to the units they are stacked with. This is not a new idea, and has been done in other games. But we could improve on the concept. For example, why not also improve the values of units who are within a given proximity of each leader? And if you really want to make things interesting, here are some other options:
1) Increase/Decrease a leader's "modifiers" based on actual success or failure in battle.
2)Include a "dark side of success" variable. For example, the more successful a leader, the greater the liklihood he will contend with the government for power! History is rife with examples of just such behavior, from long before Caesar to MacArthur in our own time. Successful leaders could either revolt and create their own empire (taking with them a portion of yours), or challenge the ruling dynasty for power (and not always successfully, either).
How leaders appear, life spans, number allowed, those are all interesting questions, but I won't address them here.

Religion/Philosophy: This is a major issue, IMO. Just look at history and see how the sudden appearance and spread of religions have radically altered the world. Christianity in the Roman Empire, Islam in the Middle and Far East, Buddhism in Asia, are just a few of the more obvious examples. Modeling this could be a big challenge, but omitting it would make the game much less "accurate" from a historical standpoint. I think it CAN be done, however. Look at how things really happened. At one point on the map, a powerful religious leader appears, and the message slowly spreads from that point, like ripples on a pond. I think you could use a variation of the "Dynasty Model" to simulate this, with a few important exceptions:
1) Religions spread from city to city, without regard to who owns the empire.
2) They do not "rot" over time...but they do change....and the time scales are much longer.
The Dynasty model is nice, because it's an easy way to model the impact of a new religion. Some will improve military prowess, others will help the economy, etc. There's also lots of interesting subplots possible here. What happens when spreading religions collide? (usually Monotheistic will overwhelm Polytheistic, but not always (ex. Hinduism)). Should it be possible to combat the spread of a religion? Are there cases where a religion cannot infiltrate your empire? (Yes, if your govt is religion based. Look at Byzantium and Europe vs. Islam) Can a religion ever die? (Sure, how many people today worship Zeus, or Ahura Mazda?) Will some religions refuse to tolerate a secular government? (On the one hand, it would be nice to recruit armies from my highly motivated and newly converted Islamic cities, but will they fight for a non-Moslem emperor?) I won't beat it to death, but you can see the possibilities.

Who is the player? This has been touched upon in several threads. It's clearly a stretch to think he's the undying emperor who takes the civilization from mud hut to nuclear superpower. Rather, I see the player as the avatar of a given civilization's values. This is not unrealistic. The Chinese and Egyptians have historically been inwardly focused, whereas the Arabs and Europeans have been quite expansionist. I generalize, of course. The point is, it's not really a "game design" problem so much as a player style issue. Do you select a philosophy and follow it throughout the game, or do you oscillate wildly from one strategy to another, depending upon the needs of the moment? It's your choice.

Welcome to Clash . I think your thoughts are reasonably in sync with mine and some of the others. We are probably going to do something with characters and/or dynasties, but the decision hasn't been made yet. We will probably make it within about 10 days if we can keep to schedule...

I'd say dynasties do surely tend to decline, but probably with more variation than you portray. Alexander might not have gone anywhere were it not for Philip giving him a strong base in Greece, etc.

On the X multiplier thing, I think it needs to be more varied than an overall multiplier. Some dynasties would be great with the economy, but lousy with things military, etc. A new character within the dynasty might have different orientations. Throughout the whole issue of characters and dynasties is the luck of the draw. If players hate a bad break more than they like the caracters, then the whole thing won't work.

Your notion of religion seems good. We haven't anything really solid on the religion end yet.

Dynasties: Agreed, history proves that a successor can be more dynamic than the founder. Usually though, this is only true of the first few generations. The decline phase appears to be universal and inevitable. More to the point, I didn't want to make suggestions that would be really difficult to implement or would overly "complexify" the game, thus my "universal modifier". I do agree that a mix of dynasty types could impact different portions of the game (ie. a production dynasty vs. a military one, for example) For the thinking player, this offers lots of neat possibilities. Could you engineer the rule of a production dynasty, build up your infrastructure, and then switch to a military one in time to carry out your plans for world conquest...while always being aware that time will erode the effectiveness of your dynasty? I do favor a focus only upon ruling dynasties, as the existence of competing families within an empire, although realistic, would be vary hard to model.

Religion: Glad you like it....I just thought it up a few hours ago, LOL. But seriously, as a new concept it's ripe to have big holes poked in it.

Characters: I do see these as quite different from overlay features like religion and dynasties. The primary focus was on the military aspect, as I believe that would be easier to model (and more interesting to play with.)

Optional Features: I agree with Hrafnkell. Make features like Dynasties and Religion optional. (Perhaps even the more esoteric character features such as "learning" and revolting.) But rather than leaving them as something to check "on" or "off", incorporate them as the basis for defining difficulty levels. I could be wrong, but I think most games do this by increasing the level of AI "cheating" (it's hard to conceive of game designers making the AI "stupider"!). This is beginning to wander well beyond the focus of this thread, but isn't the primary purpose of "Clash" to provide a game with a decent AI?. God forbid it should ever be dumbed down!

I think dynasties should be the focus. You should not be able to win the game without good dynasty control. Initially you would start with one dynasty and it would be in control of all functions. Later your dynasty might split or new ones might arise in areas that you control.

Dynasties would tend to remain in one player's lands but not neccessarily. Larger countries have often supported dynasties in neighboring areas. China gave titles and wealth to various Mongol tribes to keep them fighting each other. In Braveheart the English did the same to the scots. Keeping "your" dynasties loyal would be important. Later in the game dynasties might not seem too logical but just consider them political parties, especially since many countries use the fragile parlimentary form of government. Communism can be considered one or more dynasties (russian vs chinese).

So in an empire of say 5 provnces you might have 1-10 dynasties. You would have 5 or so offices to fill (like military, religious, etc..). Additionally each dynasty will probably (but not always) have lands of its own. You could actually just make religions dynasties, and religions DO rot. I don't know what made Judaism rot but it isn't doing very well right now. Catholisism must have had its troubles (selling indulgances and such) otherwise there wouldn't be Protestants. Protestants used to be known for science and such but they are the last hold outs against evolution. Islam started off fine with trade and scholarship but just look at Afghanistan where you have to paint your windows black because people on the street might catch a glimpse of a woman buried under black cloth if the windows let people see inside. Religions can also have lands, either portions (like in feudal times) or all (like in theocracies)

Chracters would be generated by dynasties. Stronger and younger dynasties would tend to produce stronger chracters, but it would involve a bell curve. Dynasties would naturally weaken or become corrupted over time. If a chracter was significantly stronger than his dynasty the dynasty would strenthen. A very weak character could destroy a dynasty. The chracters would fill the governmental roles like Mark said. If you always picked your war leader from a certain dynasty what would you do if that dynasty produced a whimp next time you were up for a replacement? Would you shove the boy into a job he wasn't made for (pleasing the dynasty but weakening the army) or pick someone from another dynasty? If you selected another candidate the new dynasty would be pleased but the other one would feel cheated. If they are strong (and the weak character was an anomoly) then they might be very angry unless they are given something else (more land, maybe the boy is better at something else). If they are weak they might put up a mild protest and then accept it.

Players could try to maintain many dynasties, a few, or just one. Those with many dynasties will have more options while those with just one will have more stability.

You might even completely combine dynasties and government. The dynasties would correspond somewhat with the classes, though not always on a one for one basis. Thus a palace coup (I think something like this was mentioned in a government post) would involve executing the current character holding the crown and replacing him with another. The dead guy's dynasty would not be happy with the change but a lot of other people might, especially if the new character is strong (and thus probably comes from a strong dynasty).

To make dynasties better fit various roles they might have a stat for each role. Newly founded religions might have 90-100% in religion but might be in the 10-30% for other things. Thus if the dynasty produces a chracter if would probably (but of course not always) be good at religion but bad at everything else. You might give the papacy to a character from this religion but would you want to give this group the other offices? Probably not unless you have no other loyal dynasties.

If things are done this way dynasties should generally make chraracters slightly faster than they die off, otherwise positions would be vacant frequently. Also dynasties that are stronger or more influential might make characters at a slightly higher rate, perhaps as many as two per generation. Additionally if there is a severe character drought perhaps a dynasty might spit out a character early but with much lower stats. Individuals might be allowed to hold more than one office.

Well that's it for now.

Actually it isn't. 30 seconds after I posted this I had another strange idea (so I started editiing the message) which lead to a stranger idea and so on but then I hit some key combo which just shut the dumb browser (ctrl C?).

Ok I'll try to reconstruct my crazy ideas:

I recall a post (Mark's I think) where he said that if you got tired of your big empire you could take up a small portion and revolt. Say you got tired of playing Britain and you wanted to play America you would revolt. You would set it up by first punishing the American dynasties and rewarding their rivals. Then you might kill a few of characters from American dynasties or something like that. Then you would fill all of your goverment positions with American officials. Since the principle represents the player now you would be playing the Americans. Most of the other dynasties would not stand for an American in charge so the couintry would split. You would now rule the American portion. Some dynasties of course would have territories in both areas but after a while both countries would sort things out (maybe by burning down all the tory houses in America).

This leads to another idea. Who is to say that you and I cannot both put the same man in charge of our countries? If my spotty knowlwdge of WW2 is correct Eisenhower (or something like that) was in change of all the European forces. The EU now (or the future?) has a sort of shared treasury thing. Under a federal government some offices are held in common between all the parts while others aren't. Basically what I am saying is that the player could be the characters, not the land. You control the chracters who control the offices. If you control the chracter who runs the military in a certain nation then you control those military units (though probably not the reserves). If you control the Queen of England then you are considered ruler of England. If she happens to be the Empress of India then you have power over India as well. Thus you would split a player's control into several parts.

The principle would have the powers of execution (only he can kill other characters), and some other powers. The general would control the military units, the top priest would control whatever top priests control, etc...

Of course players would rarely give offices to chracters owned by other players, however if your friend has the Jesus character you might just let him control your religion, especially if your Polytheistic dynasty isn't producing good characters anymore. Of course since this Christian dynasty is new and dynamic it is going to want more and more power. Once the dynasty gets established in your land what do you do? If you ignore them your empire might just break apart. Looks like it's time to cut your losses and get a new leader, someone from a dynasty that is allied with them.

>In 600 b.C. my Roman Empire grows in a way
>that al of today's italy belongs to it. Up
>to this point I micro-managed a s much as
>possible, trying to make the best out of
>it. Now, the program informs me of the fact
>that my empire has grown too large to be
>effectively led by just one alone;

This is an excellent idea. But:
What is the critical size and how to measure it? Is it population, is it size or is it distance from the ruler's palace?
I think distance plays a big role. People cannot be controlled if they are far away and communication is low. (When communication gets better the possibility of centralizing the government raises).

>I had the choice between receiving
>disadvantages for sticking to an
>ineffective system OR I could choose
>amongst the nobility a provincial leader.

What will be these disadvantages? What topic do they cover? Economical, political?
Is this getting of disadvantages a sudden thing after reaching the "critical mass" or do these disadvantages grow continuously as my empire grows?
In CIV his is nicely marke as corruption and waste. Their percentage on economy grows with distance from capitol.

>From this point, I WON'T be able to do most
>micro-management in that province, since
>the provincial leader would see that as
>offensive behaviour. As for my capital /
>core empire, I'm free whether to choose a
>vizir or not (a leader should have some
>direct influence on his capital).

I suggest to become more specific.
WHAT kind of MM should be restricted and how?
If I name a provincial leader (this government type could be called feudalism) I do not give my land away to create a new Civilization. That leader will remain responsible to me for his actions!
I think here is a very good point to reduce the player's MM, but the player is still the king! If he thinks that in a certain square there has to be built a road, then there IS to be built a road! And if the king requests taxes he has to get it by the barons.
But if the king has to do different things in his short time he can count on the barons who do the MM for him.

Here my suggestion:
As distance grows the provinces become more difficult to rule. Crime, corruption and disobeying grows proportional to distance from th empire's center. And additionally: orders to cities and armys get a latency time to be executed.

To overcome this ineffectiveness the player can assign a 'baron' who will do the MM. Such a person lowers crime, corruption and disobeying and has control over the army units in his province.
According to create characters / dynasties this baron can be effective, not so effective, loyal or cheating or even trying to become an own nation. - This would be the price for enhancing the effectivity of the far province.
But every royal order (what the player wants to do in that province) overrides the baron's orders.
Of course if you want, you could make some orders having the side effect to decrease the baron's loyality to you.
You could even make it that the baron is disobeying only a little to some orders and you have to decide to replace him (risk of revolt and splitting off the province from the empire) or grant him autonomy rights.

Peter

My basic premise is there are two kinds of characters. (Although there is a fuzzy region between the two groups)

1)Those who answer to the player and can be used or not as desired. These, I think should be few in general, although the player can select the average number available.
Example: a great general

2)Those who the player can interact with, but has no direct control over:
a) representatives of social classes in the internal politics of the civ(upper classes, labor...)
b) characters in other civs
Example: The Fugger merchant/banking dynasty

Characters of each type all have the same characteristics. Usually there is at most one or two unusually good characteristics. Most of the other characteristics will usually be 'normal'. Players will have some idea of the characteristics of a character, but usually won't know the whole story. The characteristics will mostly be on a %bonus scale. So a characteristic of Army Leadership (Mil Skill) +100% means with this leader an army is twice as effective as usual. A statesmanship skill -10% would give a 10% Penalty to usual diplomatic actions. (That's one reason why decaying dynasties will hurt, lots of minuses)

Proposed characteristic list:

Authority (has culturally recognized power, like the son of the king)

Charisma (bonus in dealing with other characters, esp. those who represent other factions. Also having a high-charisma character killed might be very dangerous if player/govt. is implicated)

Military Leadership (Army or Navy... not both)

Administration (affects economy, govt effects)

statesmanship / diplomatic skill

Religious (however if the religion is becoming corrupted by earthly power can be either a reformer or Heretic [frustrated reformer])

inventor/thinker

Merchant/Banker/Industrialist (spurs trade or economic growth, potential source of funds)

--

Loyalty (how loyal are they to whom they represent)

Personality (Dignified, Jovial, Crass, just for flavor)

History (If part of a dynasty where they fit in. Also personal history... "Commanded the army in the great victory at Gaugamela"

Well its late... what characteristics that are big am I missing? Help meeeeee....

The characters in Clash IMO by design should not be around for very long. So any imbalance should be temporary. The area's clearly going to require careful thought and playtesting.

Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have a superclass "Agent" and then do all kinds of subclass agents like Merchant Company, Religion, Dynasty, Grassroot movement (evolves when a society is very different from what the ppl in the society needs whit consideration to ppls freedom and strength of gov) etc?

I too think that MoM was a great game. The spells where a lot better balanced against eachother than the wonders o' the world in the civ series or SMAC, although overall balance and AI sucked worse than your average civ. The really fun part was heroes and how you could build their strength. It would be nice if one could affect theese agents, both thoose who are free, who work for you and thoose who work for other civs.

Oh, and if you're gonna have wonders, couldn't you make them come in two versions: The first civ to get it gets a Big Boost or some other advantage, but all others can now build the wonder to a reduced cost and with reduced benefits. So not just one civ can have a KGB etc, as in the civ-series.

Just some food for thought.

/Cerebuz

------------------

/Cerebuz
____________________

We may do the characters as Agents... Even if not they will have agent-like behaviors.

I really don't want to have characters or dynasties that grow in power. These are great play elements in, say, a fantasy setting, but I think they would disrupt the connection with history we're trying to foster in Clash.

Blade Runner:

I think you're right about possibilities for rebellion etc. However, I don't think the characters will always do the 'just' thing. They might be equally likely (but not often) to ally with your enemy whether the enemy is morally on the right side or not. It would just depend on how good a chance they perceive they have of getting away with it IMO.

Cerebuz:

Hrafnkell is currently looking into putting characters into the internal politics system. We'll have to see what he comes up with.

So far we have no firm plans for wonders, although there was some discussion of them a bit ago. I think the general opinon was that we don't want wonders with awesome cosmic powers like in Civ2.

1) I wanted to have characters in CLASH from the beginning - but I fully agree with Mark that we should make them dynasties for the sake of credibility (Maybe we should NAME the game "Despots & Dynasties"?). As for the question how long a dynasty should "live"... well, please do not put all the stress on realism. Having a dynasty rise only to lose it some game turns later is boring. At least there should be the odd dynasty which accompanies my rise as aruler (hopefully so) fo many hundred years. I'd like to have the same feeling for at least some dynasties as I have for my group members in roleplaying games - and I want to be really sorry if one dies (or if the situation forces me to remove it). Dynasties (or some of them) must stick around for a while so the player gets an opportunity to develop an emotional bond (positive or negative). Btw., like CIV taught many of us hardcore strategy gamers that there are other ways to victory, CLASH could teach the need for cooperation - not only with other empires, but with helping hands within my own empire.

2) I can't agree with the ideas that dynasties where mostyl founded by some strong-willed indiviadual and then gradually declined. I think it's more historically accurate if you say that often a strong-willed individual let an existing dynasty appera important which before wasn't. So, maybe, more like a gaussian curve...

3) Mark, I like your list of possible characteristics.

4) Characters (dynasties) should be freely available as long as "empty posts" are concerned - i.e. if I have a province that needs a governor, some dynasty must be available all the time. Additionally, there should always be a small pool of characters so I can replace existing ones I don't like at all. BUT

a) not all characteristics should be obvious before actually setting in a character.

Characters can be part of a dynasty or one-shots (not attached to a dynasty). One-shots are more typical of meritocratic systems, and will tend to be a little stronger than your average dynasty member. The typical character (individual) lasts about 30 turns (say 20-40 barring mishaps) on average. Dynasties will usually go thru 4-6 characters before the characters become so lousy you gotta rid yourself of them. I think an average dynasty lifetime of 150 turns is pretty good. Maybe 1/7th of a 1000-turn game.

Character Luck must Even Out in the long run...
Each civ will have generated for it at birth a profile of Total character power at each turn for the remainder of the game. (This is to get around constant character reload cheats looking for a lucky shot.) The Average over the whole game will be set by the player. So if you want a lot of characters you can set it high. Each time you field a new character you have control over (independent ones are not under your control) its stats are determined and deducted from the total character power bank. When you run out of points all your characters after that will just be average. The will have names, history, or whatever, but their stats will not really help the player.

The character point bank value can be modified by factors like corruption, meritocratic nature of the civ, etc.

I'm not sure what I think about the point bank... It seems kinda kludgey. Anyone else have a decent idea?

In response to your query as to whether we are modeling the genetic crap shoot of leaders, or subordinate jobs like governors, the answer is yes . The points you raised are the things that get me most interested in the character system. I find the wildcard geniuses the most interesting, in that they push the game in a direction the player may not have imagined ten turns before. The capability to use multiple characters as governors or labor leaders will clearly be of use in the 'connection-to-game' aspects. I think we should try both (at Player option), since they're not mutually exclusive. We will simply need to playtest the two aspects of characters before the answer is clear what to use in the final game.

-Mark