quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai on 10-31-2000 12:05 PM Well here is why its good to have these pages.

Indeed. We have a different vision in this respect and this discussion will hopefully benefit both of us. I know I for one find it highly interesting and usefull

quote: You see there is a differance in what i think you consider a wonder and what i do. A wonder must have physical attributes directly related to it, so Age of Reason and Cure for Cancer are out. Any "age" things are out because they are numerous and every place has them at differnt times. The disease cures may be possible as achievements, but then again maybe not. Maybe for the baterical diseases of the disease model.

I can underdstand that Cure for Cancer wouldn't be suitable for Clash, I had forgotten about the Disease Model, you are right that that is more suitable for modelling cures and such. The Age of Reason was a mistake on my behalf, I apperently wasn't paying attention. Age of Reason in a advance in CtP and I accidentally referred to the advance and not the Wonder that comes available with it, as I intended to. What I meant to use was Emancipation Act (which puts an end to slavery), but I guess that's not suitable according to your definition either.

quote: Another differance is how you see a wonder. A wonder IMO doesn't haveto affect your daily life. Hey if that were the case, almost anything could be a wonder/achievement. The developement of coffee for many people (not me) would be one. The automobile another, etc. Wonders are structures or whatnot that as far as society is concerned stand above the rest for some reason, not ness. practical or everyday reasons. They act as symbols also and I think you forgot that, atleast it sounds that way.

You say everything could be called a Wonder by your definition, but by your definition the same is the case, I could probably come up with at least several dozen wonders that were built in my home country (the Netherlands) alone and the my country is one of the smallest countries in the world!

It's true that I didn't describe my definition of a wonder very clearly. That's mainly because I only came up with it very recently (partly because of this thread) and it obviously needs some more refining. Not only does a wonder have to have an impact on everyday life of a lot of people, it also needs to be one big project that had a specific goal in mind when it was started.
FE someone (J. F. Kennedy IIRC) one day decided that it was necessary for the man to go to the moon so a whole project was started up to go to realize this. Or some pharaoh one day decided he wanted to start building his tomb and for the next 30 or so years people worked on building his Pyramid. The same thing goes for the Great Wall, the Manhattan Project or the Internet.
This is however not the case with coffee. Noone ever said "we need a drink that can keep us awake and active even when it's better to get some rest, let us invent coffee!", it was more an accidental discovery and noone deliberately pumped any resources into it to make sure the goal would be reached (there was never a goal). The automobile or, yet better, the plane too, was not a undertaking with a specific goal in mind, it was more a process of trial and error with as goal something as general as to achieve 'some better means of transport' or 'some way to fly', it wasn't obvious in advance what the end result would be like and there were many dead ends.
I do agree with you when you say it's not necessary to pump a *lot* of resources in building/achieving a wonder, but it is necessary IMHO that people made a decission to build/achieve something and then put some or more effort and resources in it to ensure that their goal would be reached.

quote: As far as the things like Big Ben or whatever, the thing about building wonders is that it takes time and resources to build those magnificanet buildings, something you haveto put extra effort into, not just an oridnary building or wall. Whether or not it pays off and to how much is up to society and so that is the reason for having those Big Bens. Maybe that statue you built was enough to rally people of your nation for some pride, but isn't too important or even known outside your country. Soceity didn't allow it to be, but your time and effort weren't completely in vain. That is a balance feature most of all.

You say it needs to rally people for some pride, but I don't agree. FE the completion of the new mall and city hall in my home town of Hengelo (just as unimportant a town as the name suggests ) made me feel really, really proud to be a Hengelo-er and a Dutchman and I certainly wasn't the only one. By your definition, can you explain to me why our mall or city hall aren't wonders if the Big Ben is? ('cause they aren't, or shouldn't be, if you ask me) I bet the costs for building weren't that much lower and as you said, a statue could suffice as a wonder and that is a lot cheaper than our city hall. Let me add that the design of both the mall and the city hall are unique and by some even called revolutionary. The architects involved are supposed to be famous and have worldwide respect (though I never heard of them before ). And yes, a lot of effort was made to make sure these would both be special and not 'just another mall/city hall'.

But even if you want your wonder to have physical attributes, surely that would be possible in most cases following my definition. I already mentioned the Great Wall and Pyramids as well as the Internet, which have physical attributes already. And for the Apollo Program you could take the Kennedy Space Center or the Moon Lander or Lunar Base like that to represent it. For the Manhattan Project one could take Los Alamos Base or something like that. Sailing around the world could be represented by Magelhan's ship (I'm sure it had a name but I don't know it), the Human Genome Project by some important research institute that worked on it, etc.

quote: Well that's true and why i wanted to know, but you haveto think though that you as a guiding force/leader of your civ should be slightly differnt that your average citizen. True you shouldn't deal with everyone, but if the president of another country is the 'spokeman' and/or ruler in any sence of that country, then i wonder why you think you shouldn't haveto deal with them.

quote: I can underdstand that Cure for Cancer wouldn't be suitable for Clash, I had forgotten about the Disease Model, you are right that that is more suitable for modelling cures and such. The Age of Reason was a mistake on my behalf, I apperently wasn't paying attention. Age of Reason in a advance in CtP and I accidentally referred to the advance and not the Wonder that comes available with it, as I intended to. What I meant to use was Emancipation Act (which puts an end to slavery), but I guess that's not suitable according to your definition either.

quote: You say everything could be called a Wonder by your definition, but by your definition the same is the case, I could probably come up with at least several dozen wonders that were built in my home country (the Netherlands) alone and the my country is one of the smallest countries in the world! It's true that I didn't describe my definition of a wonder very clearly. That's mainly because I only came up with it very recently (partly because of this thread) and it obviously needs some more refining. Not only does a wonder have to have an impact on everyday life of a lot of people, it also needs to be one big project that had a specific goal in mind when it was started. FE someone (J. F. Kennedy IIRC) one day decided that it was necessary for the man to go to the moon so a whole project was started up to go to realize this. Or some pharaoh one day decided he wanted to start building his tomb and for the next 30 or so years people worked on building his Pyramid. The same thing goes for the Great Wall, the Manhattan Project or the Internet. This is however not the case with coffee. Noone ever said "we need a drink that can keep us awake and active even when it's better to get some rest, let us invent coffee!", it was more an accidental discovery and noone deliberately pumped any resources into it to make sure the goal would be reached (there was never a goal). The automobile or, yet better, the plane too, was not a undertaking with a specific goal in mind, it was more a process of trial and error with as goal something as general as to achieve 'some better means of transport' or 'some way to fly', it wasn't obvious in advance what the end result would be like and there were many dead ends.

The Great Wall of China wasn't even built as an intended wonder, it was built to protect their seemingly only weak border and they wanted to make it strong (their are conflicting stories as to whether is was intended to keep the mongols out or the treasure they attempted to steal still inside china). Anyway, history has shown it failed at either purpose, but that doesn't make it any less grand. It then took on a new meaning, esp when the Europeans came.

In modern times, the Internet is my example. The internet was orginally used only for military purposes, then later for large corperations and nations and finally became fully public. No one at the time it became public (which is i assume the internet you're talking about), even thought it would change the world like it has done so today. They saw it as a fun place to post stuff (and still do) and a place to advertise for businesses, but they didn't consider too much that even small businesses could become global easily. Thus, the intent differs from the actual result, but it is still grand in its achievement (probably the only one i can think of that would get the highest level since many historians say it will reshape the world so much that it hasn't been seen since the invention of agriculture).

As to your netherlands point, again that is totally possible in my game, however, the effects of such won't last for too long and will simply for game mechanic purposes be 'deleted' after X years. I mean can you name every such thing thoughout your countries history? yet they still had an impact perhaps.

quote: I agree with you when you say it's not necessary to pump a *lot* of resources in building/achieving a wonder, but it is necessary IMHO that people made a decission to build/achieve something and then put some or more effort and resources in it to ensure that their goal would be reached.

quote: You say it needs to rally people for some pride, but I don't agree. FE the completion of the new mall and city hall in my home town of Hengelo (just as unimportant a town as the name suggests ) made me feel really, really proud to be a Hengelo-er and a Dutchman and I certainly wasn't the only one. By your definition, can you explain to me why our mall or city hall aren't wonders if the Big Ben is? ('cause they aren't, or shouldn't be, if you ask me) I bet the costs for building weren't that much lower and as you said, a statue could suffice as a wonder and that is a lot cheaper than our city hall. Let me add that the design of both the mall and the city hall are unique and by some even called revolutionary. The architects involved are supposed to be famous and have worldwide respect (though I never heard of them before ). And yes, a lot of effort was made to make sure these would both be special and not 'just another mall/city hall'.[quote] True, what you said, but such 'wonders' would be of the lowest scale, city or square pride and admoration. The city hall isn't ness one because almost every city has one, the same for the mall. The differance would be 1>as you mentioned they have unique archieture and 2> the size of the mall might count (not sure of this yet, but the Great Wall and the Pyramid that's a wonder (there's only on that is) were both wonders because they were the biggest as was Collusus) 3> The amount of resources put into it may affect it, if it was more than enough to spend on the minimum cost of constuction (minimum cost buildings and whatnot never can be wonders, the player hasto take some risk). [quote[But even if you want your wonder to have physical attributes, surely that would be possible in most cases following my definition. I already mentioned the Great Wall and Pyramids as well as the Internet, which have physical attributes already. And for the Apollo Program you could take the Kennedy Space Center or the Moon Lander or Lunar Base like that to represent it. For the Manhattan Project one could take Los Alamos Base or something like that. Sailing around the world could be represented by Magelhan's ship (I'm sure it had a name but I don't know it), the Human Genome Project by some important research institute that worked on it, etc.

Good Luck with the project and i'll get back to you with answers soon.

This is still the proper website, I've got a new version in the works at the moment and it should be up in a week or two.

Glad to hear your are checking in on us, and thanks for the well-wishes.

new demo: Probably not until after Xmas

web page: Chris covered most of this, but just in case you are on an old one its still at clash.apolyton.net/frame. Just reading the intro part of each model (usually 2-5 paragraphs) will give you a good idea of the current state of play on most of the models.

things to do:
We could really use some people to check out the military models and comment/work on them. The two guys who were on it have developed a case of Real Life...

Please check the Mil page on the web site (at least the summary part at top). and the links therein, if you're interested in commenting, or even better, want to help develop the model. PS the link to "Related Web Site: Krenske's Concepts" is dead. I just let Chris know about it, but until its fixed you can check out the detailed Battle Model at http://www.usq.edu.au/users/krenske/game/civ/scouting.htm and the links to the other models therein.

Other than that, tell me what Kind of thing you'd like to do, and I'm sure I can come up with something.

Welcome to Clash!

Yeah, we could use help on art, nobody's doing any work on it at the moment. Why don't you poke around a bit, and if you're interested let me know what you see yourself doing to help out. Playtesting will be good when the next demo comes out, hopefully by the end of the year! Please also comment on the existing design wherever you feel appropriate.

-Mark

Richard�s:
1:RPG-like.
2:Ecology moil is fine, as long as it isn�t overly complex.
3:Not sure. It would probably be to complicated.
4:Cilider is fine; donut and flat should be available for scenarios, and you might wont
a option at the start-up.
5: I�d like to be able to leave it to a competent AI or control it myself.
Roquijad�s:
A: Around 5-6.
B: The stuff in the social model looks good; I don�t know if you should have a middle class or not.
C: Less control, but don�t take it to far(losing control of the military or the budget is just
To Much).
D: Very much so!
E: I don�t know�
F: Yes, I like what I see in the modals.
G: No, it would get to complicated.
H: Ethnicity�s.
I: Yes!
J: When It doesn�t interfere with gameplay:7. When it does:1 .
K:12 out of ten! MOST IMPORTANT!(I hope to start a thread on this soon.)
L: Yes; moderately detailed.
LGJ�s:
1a: Customizable Wonders( both in the game and in scenarios). Other than that, I�m not sure.
1b: Both!
2a: Yes
2b: Yes, but I�m not sure how to implement it.
2c;Political parties maybe?
2d: Not sure.
3a: Very much a part of the game.
3b: One quibble; I don�t think you should force a character to stay in one alignment bracket. It should be hard, but not impossible.
3c: I�ll have to think on that one�

Whew! A lot of typing! Before I forget, what does IMO mean? And if you�re really sending monthly updates to a newspaper, could you put them up on the web site in some obvious place?

Things like the technology glossary will usually define the terms used in that model. I make sure that the model proposal defines all acronyms, later discussion referrs to those.

I'm here if you want anything from me. Let me see some action and I'll be posting in an instant!

Since I have just replied to one of Mark's inquiring e-mails , I thought I should honor the original purpose of the thread and declare my presence, silent as it may be.

VENCEREMOS!

Yes, that WAS a sticky thread, but with the recent malady that ACS has undergone, it has lost it's sticky status and has sunk in it's proper position. I hope that everything is ok with the Clash Team's accounts (alot of accounts in Apolyton were messed up).

This brings back the issue if we have a backup of some sort, of the most important threads for the development of Clash. Mark?

Well, the discussion in this extremely useful thread has died off, after getting us lots of good information from beyond our small circle. There are two possible conclusions. Either we only had four lurkers to start with, or we are intimidating them again because of the huge size of our discussions. My guess is the latter. I have a remedy to propose..

If you are interested, I think it would be valuable for the unindicted co-conspirators that participated in this thread to start a new one afresh. Put all the old polling questions at the top, and then see if we get some more input. The first poster should of course put in a link to this thread. I think the poll questions need to be extremely short, like a sentence or two. Any further information for those who are more interested should be linked to IMO. Perhaps whoever starts out the thread should also state that the discussion of each item should be relatively short, and encourage people to post long answers in one of the regular threads.

I downloaded some days ago the Clash Demo 4 and I started to play quicly after downloading it. But the game disappointed me, as I was looking forward more. But, it is a demo and it is logical.

After playing two games and be defeated both times, I started to read more detailed the website and most of the things I read were very good, so I go on reading and finally I decided to help because I think the general idea: Good AI, historical accuracy and lots of variables to make the game complex.

I do not know what is the best forum this mail suit better because I would like to write some general ideas.

Being a wargamer, I started to play Sid's Meier Civilization (the first one long time ago) thinking it would be the same than the Avalon Hill Civilzation. They aren't. They only share the name and the year of starting. Avalon's Hill ones is funnier and you must think a lot to win the game, but you need 5 or 6 more players.

Sid Meier's one is very adictive turn-based game, but extremely inaccurate, but with a great potential because it has some very good ideas. The next civilizations have some technologies, units, more, but the general ideas are the same without improving some of the faults.

The first and main problem of the game I think it is the time a turn last. In a great scale game with economy/technology research, etc... the game turn should be long enough to be able to see changes (as the turn in Civilization), but then it is very difficult to simulate other things like wars, production, etc...

So my idea is to make two time for turn. One for the war and other in technology and economics ... I don't know exactly how much time a turn is suppossed to be, but even if it is a year (and then you have a 5000 turn-length game) the units can move a lot (even the ancients can win or lose wars of several battles in one year, and in modern war, things are much more quicker. On the othe hand, another topics, such as economy or trade (I haven't read anything about it, where is in the website?) can be handled in a more spacious turn.

So my idea is a 5 years turn divided in 3 months war-turns: at the beginning of the 5 years turn all decissions (economics , diplomatic, etc..) are made, and also some military: what number of armies are mobilized for these 5 years and if declaring the war in which war-turn is done.

If nobody wants war (remember that an empire cannot start many wars) the 5 years past quickly and start another turn. If somebody wants war (for example at the middle of the turn) The clocks ticks until there and a more tactical game starts with a 3 months turn and allowing players control of several factors: Now more armies can be raised, etc...

These are some of my ideas after playing several wargames (some like Imperium Romanum II are more a historical simulation than a game) and comparing with the different civilization types approaches.

I hope these ideas help and sorry if it si not the exact thread of the topic.

Glad you're interested in working on the project! I have only a few moments before I need to leave for work. On military vs econ turns we've taken a somewhat different approach from yours, but there are similarities also. At least for now what we're trying is:
1. there's only one turn, But...
2. a month worth of military action takes place during it
3. a variable amount of economic or other action happens during it.

You can find more on the topic if you use the search function looking for maybe 'military economic turn' or something similar.

Later,

1. Tech

The model you described on your web page (3 levels etc.) sounds promising. Especially because even old inventions are constantly improved (nobody would use a wheel like the Romans had for his Ferrari).

2. Ecology

I like the idea of different climates. Also ecology is known (at least should be by now) to be a complex system (deforestation should have effects downstream etc.). Human actions, especially in modern time have quite an impact on the ecology, which in turn acts on the humans (more cancer etc.)

3. Age of the population

You could do a trick be saying that only a certain part (~50%?) is actually active workforce, but the others need also food etc.

4. Map

Cylander is ok for me. A flat map would be good for scenarios (mediterran for antique, pacific FE for WW2 etc.)

5. Military

Both should be possible. There are still people who like micromanagement (like me).

More answers

A. Number of classes

5

B. Which classes?

Upper class, mid class (craftsmen, artists, local merchants etc.), low class, clergy (with relations to where these people actually come from: uc, mc, lc) and the same for military.

C. Ruler power

should depend on the form of gov't.
tight: tyranny, monarchie, theocracy, dictatorship....
shared with others: oligarchy, aristocracy, republic, democracy

D. Nomad civ

While you're a nomad the other civs improve in tech, economy, etc. and you stay behind. Thats the reason why we don't live as nomads any more. However it could be interesting for some scenarions (Mongols, Fall of Roman Empire)

E. Inherent stability of the empire

Should be more unstable at the beginning and improve with tech, infrastructure

F. Disasrers/diseases

Good if it's implemented like you discribed it in the model. High difficulty setting shouldn't mean that the player is the victim more often that the AI players. BTW: That's something I really HATE about civ-type games: The higher the difficulty setting the worse is the starting location. When I choose high difficulty I want the AI to be smart, but not to cheat, arrrgh. (Maybe the player should be able to decide, how much the AI shall cheat once he needs a greater challenge).

G. Tech level difference between provinces

Maybe a delay until tech becomes available in far away provinces depending on tech level (communication), infrastructure and of course trade activities.

H. Ethnic groups

Adds a great deal of realism and also new challenges to the game.

I. Internal affairs

Ethnic conflicts (also religious ones) have been a major issue all the time.

J. Close to history (0-10)

9. Look at the tech tree of CTP2, it's completly screwed up. This really p..... me off. Anyway it should still have some flexibility to reflect the circumstances a civ is in (long times of war, lacking of resources, island civ etc.)

K. Sci-fi, fantasy

The game shouldn't end 2000AD. Thats something I didn't like about Civ1/2. At least there should be techs of near future. Even if the future techs of CTP1 are really Sci-fi I liked them very much. Personally I'd like to see techs of colonizing the solar system, because once a player has reached this age the world has become a village. Even far away provinces are now closer, so a very far away colony in space would allow to explore, settle, conquer new territories. Also these colonies could use the independence war/guerilla model for things like a "mars rebellion" in B5. These things would also increase the importance of Sky-/Spacetroops. BTW don't forget ocean cities.

As for fantasy I'd like to use these econ, gov't, social models to build a "Master of Magic" scenario which is better than that of Civ2. Greek mythology scens would also be cool.

L. Pirates

Richard Bruns
1) RPG.

2) ... ecology model changes the landscape in realistic ways ...

3) I know it will difference, just don't know what now.

4) cube.

5) moving units around the squares yourself

roquijad
A) 4-5

B) (I think social classes has been thrashed enough)

C) like to experience less control (lifelike).

D) "nomadic civ" might be interesting for a while, but not if you are interested in world domination.

E) As long as I had forewarning of the impending disaster AND alternatives provided to me, this is acceptable.

F) disasters and diseases add fun? I guess as an additional challenge (as if building a civilization wasn't enough).

G) Yes. This would be very interesting from a "lifelike" perspective.

H) ethnicities

I) Yes I like having to deal with internal conflicts

J) historical accuracy? 9

K) Not a whole lot.

L) pirates? Yes at the units level (I know, the dreaded word ).

2)Ecology?
Civilizations are deeply influenced by terrain. It defines their cultural outlook and their possibilities and limits for development.

3)Ethnicity?
I see ethnicity as an attribute of social groups. These might eventually merge if the differences have become small enough. It must be simplified anyway: look at a population map of the Balkan and you see what I mean. It would be something for the province level.
The effects of migration will be very interesting if this is worked out well.

4)Kind of map?
Stick to the cylinder, but modify it to correct the deformation at the poles on a Mercator projection. For example, if 20� at the equator equals 20 squares, then 20� at the poles could equal 15 squares.

See also my previous message.
Here's a proposal:

Economic Religious Ruling Military

3 Upper class Fugger pope president general
ayatollah emperor
2 Middle class trader bishop aristocracy captain
poorter imam senator
1 Lower class craftsman lay clerk sergeant
mercenary
0 Peasant worker heathen citizen recrute
farmer
-1 Outcasts beggar excommunicated rebel deserter
pirate 'fatwa'ed anarchist

These are four classes, with examples of the ranks in that class.
Additional classes could be Academic, Labor Union or something else, if they have an considerable impact on society (in the game rules or that particular game).
Each social group should have a ranking in each class. Rankings in the classes correlate (mainly with the economic class) the ruling upper class is rarely economic outcast or military 'peasant' class.
If the game starts at the time of the first cities, you start with only 4 social groups: 0 to 3 in economic class. Otherwise, you

C) Being the ruler of your civ, do you want to have always a tight control of the civ's govt decisions or would you like to experience less control in regimes where the ruler isn't really all powerful in real life?
E) How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?

The ruler is in fact ruling upper class. Could it be possible to start the game as any social group ? The player then first has to obtain ruler class 3. After that, he can be usurped and afterwards regain the throne. This would also become intriguing when a society evolves to democracy, when a player has to struggle to regain office, remain popular and cleaning up the mess those other, incompetent groups made.

F) Do you think having disasters and deseases add fun to the game?
They make it interesting, otherwise development is almost always linear.

G) Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?
This ought to be reflected in infrastructure that is (not yet) built.

J) How much do you care about historical accuracy in a 0-10 scale?
I do care about the outline but not about the detail. A good system generates plausible situations.

K) How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?
That's for version 2.0.

Much of what you suggest on the govt/social end is already in the plan, although not in exactly the ways you mentioned. If you're interested in more details check out the govt and social models on the web page, and the forum threads you can get to from there. We'd certainly like to hear what you think in more detail.