Are you a lurker? Are you an inactive Team member? Are you the sort of person that keeps track of Clash development but is too busy or too timid or simply has nothing special to contribute?

Edit: Added links to the models

1) We currently have the option to make two tech systems. One of them is the standard Civ2/Starcraft prerequisite based system. The other is structured more like an RPG character building system, where the abilities of the civ develop continuously over time as the civ gains experience doing things. Which system do you think would be more fun?

Look on the webpage under "Technology" for a description of the new model.

2) We are considering adding a detailed ecology model that changes the landscape in realistic ways, both naturally and in response to player and AI civ actions. Do you think this would be fun, or would you prefer a stable environment that you don't have to worry about?

3) How much detail do you want in the population model? Do you think it would add to the game if we modelled different ages seperately, or would you prefer to have an undifferentiated population mass?

4) What kind of map do you prefer? Would you like a cylander, donut, cube structure, or some other structure?

5) How much detail do you want in the military movements? Do you like moving units around the squares yourself, or would you like the option of a large scale operational combat system like the one in Axis and Allies?

For the main model, look at the website.

For a couple of the alternative combat options ideas, look here and here.

Those are the questions I can think of; other model leaders could probably ask some different questions about their models.

A collection of answers to those questions could really help us determine the direction we want to go in or what options are worth putting in.

Thanks for your time, and thanks for following the Clash project!

1. RPG-like.

2. Depends on how much I'd have to worry about it. If I need to worry about it a little (like making sure that my cities dont pollute too much), it'd be okay. If I'd need to worry about it every turn, nah.

Why not make it optional?

3. As much detail as possible.

4. I'm not sure of what you mean.

5. Maybe a system like that in King Of Dragonpass?

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

For #4, I was basically asking how you think the world structure should be reflected in the map. For example, Civ2 had a cylander world because the maps connected at the sides but not the top. If you drew the map on a piece of paper and connected the edges that connect in the game, you get a cylander.

If the top of the map connects to the bottom and the sides connect, you get a world that would be a doughnut shape of you drew it on paper and connected it.

The other option is to have six flat maps that connect at the edges to form a cube. That could be a bit more difficult but it would create a more accurately shaped world.

The battle system? Hmm, I dont think that the majority of people would like it, anyway. Too obscure.

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

1) RPG-like, I very much liked what I read about the tech model on the website.

2) Sounds cool to me, though I haven't had the time to read about the details of this.

3) At this point I'm not sure how a complicated model would add something to the game, but here too I must say that I haven't seen the details yet (where can I find those anyway?) so I can't really make a decision here.

4) IMHO the standard game should be a good-old cylander map, though it would be cool to at least have the option to turn X/Y-wrap on or off for scenarios or whatever (so you can play on donut or flat maps). Cubic maps sound interesting as well, though I fear one might loose the overview.

5) I'd like both! I'd like to be able to move around the units/taskforces myself and also to give general orders and have the AI take care of the details.

Here's a small poll for other models:

A) Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc). How many would you like to see in a typical game?

B) What social classes you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?

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?

D) Do you find interesting/fun to play a "nomadic civ"? That is, a moving civ with no cities that could eventually settle down. For example, playing the germans as a nomadic tribe for a while and then settle at some point in history.

E) How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?

F) Do you think having disasters and deseases add fun to the game?

G) Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?

H) Do you like having population divided in ethnicities or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous?

I) Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?

J) How much do you care about historical accuracy in a 0-10 scale? 0=doesn't care.

K) How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?

L) Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?

Back to the questions.

I quickly browsed through the population model and I liked what I read so my answer to question 3 would now be: yes, go for detail. I'll read up on the other models some other time.

On to the new questions:

A) Well, I like the idea of social classes but you shouldn't have too many of them, that would only make me loose overview. So the number should IMHO probably be somewhere between 5 and 10 (but probably closer to 5 then to 10).

B) Well, the ones described in the government model sounded alright to me: clergy, military, upperclass/aristorcracy, lowerclass. I think there should probably also be a middle class and I don't think bureaucratic class is a must-have, it's a good addition but one *could* argue for cutting it if things need to be simplified or whatever.

C) I like the government model as described on the website, but make sure it's still fun. In Civ1/2 it was just annoying that the senate could prevent you from going to war with someone after you have made extensive preparations for this war. It was a good idea but the implementation plain s*cked IMO.

D) Hey, that sounds very cool! I've always found it to be one of the mayor downsides of Civ that such a thing wasn't possible, there are plenty of examples in history of nomadic civs that were succesfull and left their hallmark on history. However, I have never had any good idea's on how such a thing should be implemented though.

E) Well, I think that should largely depend on the quality of the AI. In other Civ-games (maybe with the exception of CtP in combination with the MedMod) the AI just isn't good enough to get a human player on his knees so a complicated model for empire-stability is really the only way to make these games at least slightly challenging. If the AI is capable of launching coordinated invasions (both from land and from sea) and actually pushes on and finishes off his enemies instead of letting them recover after each attack, then such a model should IMHO be less important. Of course, in large empires there should always be the risk of revolts or independence movements, but there should be ways to keep an empire together. World domination should be (very) difficult but not impossible.

F) Yes, this is completely removed in CtP and that's one of the main advantages Civ2 has over CtP (doesn't mean CtP still kicks Civ2's ass though ).

G) Yes, that would be very interesting and (hopefully) fun, though good infrastructure should be able to considerably speed the dissemination of technology both within and outside your own civ (this concept was recently introduced for CtP by a mod-maker - for dissemination of techs between civs that is - and I really like it).

H) Yes, I really like what I read about ethnicities in the social model.

I) Yes, if you have ethnicities, you can't go without this.

J) 9 - the standard game should be as historically accurate as possible without compromising the entertainment value; the game should still be fun, that's why they call it a game.

K) Personally I don't really care much for Fantasy. Sci-fi would be nice but should be top priority either. But it shouldn't be too difficult to extend the advances tree into the future and add new advances and units. To make really new features available such as a cybor g race or the colonization of space, that's a different story. Focus on history (up until halfway the 21st century or so) first.

L) Well, aren't pirates really what barbarians are in regular civs and what (IIRC) 'cultures' are in your game? I don't see how they should/could be modelled differently. Don't forget it's still a Civ game, you're modelling major events here, the importance of individual ships/people should be limited (though not entirely eliminated IMHO).

Beör,
(Man, it must be annoying name to type that every time you login, I hope for you you're using cookies )

You're right, it does

Roquijad,

You're welcome.

Richard,

quote: A) Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc). How many would you like to see in a typical game?

3 to 5, probably 3.

quote: B) What social classes you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?

I am still thinking about this, sorry I tend to think classes should be labour-centered but this kind of confuses me since one can be Factory Worker and French... Then again if you have both, why not put division by sex or short term interests in too... For reason of simplicity labour division only seems best to me.

quote: 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?

In civ2 level of control ruler has is simulated by corruption level, productivity and happiness. It will have to be represented some way.

quote: D) Do you find interesting/fun to play a "nomadic civ"?

I dont really like that, maybe put an option.

quote: E) How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?

Pretty much stable. If it is possible to split your empire you should see it coming. For example if you raise taxes too much or something... you had it coming I would avoid Sudden Random Elements.

quote: F) Do you think having disasters and deseases add fun to the game?

Depends. Civ1 way (fully random) no. But if you model tectonic plates or tropical areas, why not have an occassional earthquake or tornado?

quote: G) Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?

Dont follow your tech model sorry

quote: H) Do you like having population divided in ethnicities or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous?

divide, divide and divide! I hope you do it good so we can copy it (OC3)

quote: I) Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?

Oh yes. If it gets too much detailed, make a separate game about it, just for me please

quote: J) How much do you care about historical accuracy in a 0-10 scale? 0=doesn't care.

0.

quote: K) How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?

This is no problem if everything is well programmed I think, just some graphics here and there and maybe rules file, no?

quote: L) Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?

not much detailed, like disasters maybe. Barbarians on the other hand should be a civ, as detailed as they get.

And here's my answers...

A) I just love the current government model as described on the your website: Ruler, upper class, lower class, religious, military and a public administration class.

B) One addition, however, could be the educated elite - an "acedemic class". They would rarely have a lot of government power (scientist rarely do), but could have a significant impact on research rates.

I'm not sure how big influence scientists have had historically.

C) Yes. I'd like to see less control in regimes "where the rulser isn't really all powerful in real life". Realism is good. More realism is very good.

D) Yes I think the nomadic civilization is a very interesting aspect of the game. While I'm not sure how much I'd be playing one, it would be cool to fend of the barbarian hordes from my fields.

Besides that, the conflict between farmers and nomads is a very important aspect of very ancient cultures, and it is a must to implement it.

E) I agree with VetLegion that I don't want a sudden splitting of my proud empire due to some random event. If i could see it coming, however, it would be a whole different case. I think it is very important to show the rise and fall of empires. Very few empires in history have managed to stay intact more than a handfull of centuries. Correspondingly it should be almost impossiple for a player to avoid parts of the empire to break of. The worst enemy shouldn't always be external.

F) Yes. But only if they're based on a model (like the FE disease model - which is excellent) and not some random event generator.

G) No, I don't like that idea. Sounds way too complicated, in exchange for little realism gain. Yes far away provinces might not always have been very advanced, but I think that's nicely implemented through the development of every square. Technologilly challenged provinces would simple be less developed.

E) Yes ethnicity is a good idea.

I) Yes. As stated before I don't think the worst enemy should always be external. I'd be really cool to hear from the advisors that the [ideology 1] is now rallying troops around the lands, intended on marching against the capital city.

J) Accuracy: 0. Realism: 10. It's not important that there IS a period of imperialism in a game. But if the world situation in a game evolves into a period of imperialism, then it's VERY important that the imperialistic period is implemented realistically (colony problems, protectionistic markets, declarations of independece, etc.)

The most important aspect of the game is the "what if?" question. Players should be allowed to explore. Whithin the limits of what is possible.

K) Pretty important. But speaking og Sci-fi, i'd be tremendeosly disapointed if Clash didn't go just a little into the future. I think it's very cool to see what a civilization might become. And no, I don't want settling of other planets / solarsystems - but a few satellite improvements could be extremely cool (solar power satellites as an important future power source FE. Look at The Space Settlement FAQ. Or ABM satellites. Maybe even cities in space - the so called O'neill cylinders - check the link)

1) I don't which of these models I prefer. In real world you don't just pour lightbulbs into an idea, and then pop! you have a technology. Especially in ancient times, new technologies were often discovered by chance, and there wasn't any real "science". But I do realize that for the gameplay this is a poor solution. Must admit that I haven't read the RPG solution. - So really I don't know. The less control the player has - the better.

2) I have read the ecology model on your homepage, and think it is excellent. Particularly in the end-game I would like to see some real ecological disasters when my industries pollute the world. Civ's global warming was too puny and SMAC's mindworms doesn't fit in a civilization game. Global warming etc should cause millions of deaths around the world and empires should crumble and dissipate as a result.

3) Don't know. If you find relevant use for different ages elsewhere it's a fine idea. Otherwise it should be left out. Don't build the model for its own sake.

4) A sphere would of course be the ultimate solution, but I realize that this is very hard to program. If a sphere is impossible, I'd be fully content with the good old civ I/II cylinder. (And what's that about a donut!?!?)

5) I'm not familiar to the Axis and Allies combat system, but I really hate to move my own units around. Ideally I would just tell my military advisor to exterminate civ X and then sit back and watch, perhaps changing parameters such as the number of troops available for combat, their aggressiveness level, etc. Of course the movement of troops should be shown somehow, but I really hate the term “unit”. I’d much rather like to see X soldiers and Y tanks in the Z region. Because of the units we never saw any trench warfare FE, but instead there was just a bunch of units attacking one city, moving on to the next when victorious. Wars fought over extensive frontiers should be much more common. Don’t know how to implement it though - Perhaps an attack bonus for attacking from behind or from either side.

I just read the two models hyperlinked. I’m glad you don’t like units either. Liked the first best however. A note to the second is that it was a huge disadvantage to let advisor do the combat in “lords of the realm”. Don’t let this happen in Clash.

**********

I think it’s great that you guys ask lurkers, like me, once in a while too. I’m happy if I can be of any assistance to this project, which I BTW think is an excellent idea. Be sure to comment answers – a lot of lurkers could be scared off when thinking no one listened.

Good luck with the project.

1) Technology

It seems that the consensus so far favors the RPG-like "civ experience" system. Westergaard, I think that it will give what you want. In ancient times, the player does not control technology directly. Tech advance comes based on the economic and social activity in the civ. It isn't random for fairness reasons, but it also isn't under the direct control of the player. The best way to advance tech is to manage your civ well.

2) Ecology

There seem to be different opinions on this, both among lurkers and team members. But it seems that we would please most people if the model gives accurate results and requires little micromanagement. We'll keep this in mind. I think that a good solution is to make a model that accurately simulates big disasters but requires no input on a turn by turn basis.

The problem with this is that players might find a way to avoid those disasters by micromanagement and thus give themselves an advantage. This could mean that players would feel that they have to micromanage things. But if we take away that ability to micromanage and influence the system, then the disasters would be essentially random and uncontrollable.

So we have to find a way to avoid requiring micromanagement while giving players the ability to influence and interact with the system.

3) Population

Again, mixed opinions. It seems that we'll just have to code both options and playtest. Note that the detailed population model is meant to be a scenario design tool.

4) Map Structure

It seems that the consensus is a basic cylander map for the main game. The other options are apparently a bit confusing.

5) Military System

There is suppport for the province based option, but the units movement is also popular. It seems that we'll have to make a military system that is flexible enough to handle both if them.

I do have a few questions:

1a. For the Wonders & Achievements what type of things would you like to see, espically in the use of achievements that don't have things to do with buildings such as crossing the world for the first time.

1b. Also do plan to play a more abstract or more historical model?

2a. Do you like the idea of dynasties?

2b. If so, do you want the player to have a historical dynasty for himself instead of necessarily being this immortal being as in Civ I/II? (note even if the dynasty collapsed and a new one took over, you'd be in control, but with differnt power political power level and structure maybe)

2c. If you want dynasties, how would you like things to be handled in rebublics, democracies or other non-dynastical countries, esp. for ruling dynasties?

2d. Again if you like dynasties, do you want them for every character possible? Only ones that have governmental jobs? Only specific types of jobs? Or something else?

3a. How much do you want the character model to be apart of the model? I'm really asking how integrated you want it with the rest of the game. Do you see it as an add-on moreso or a intergral part of the game or sometwhere inbetween and if so, where?

3b. Finally, what characteristic should be used for characters? (Sorry, i'll take up some space listing what is currently used right now. Tell me if you like it and if not what you would change/delete/add:

Physical Traits Social Traits
--------------------- -----------------
Status Intuition
Alignment Willpower
Reputation Charisma
Education

Status - Represents the social level a character is at. 1 is usually slave or serf or in modern times, a bum. 10 is a journeyman craftsperson or in modern times, a factory worker. 20 is the elite aristocracy or extremely influential people. In modern times these would be rulers of countries, superstars, CEOs of huge corporations like Microsoft. This also represents their relative wealth or potential wealth for the very near future. As the character is played, this may go up or down somewhat.

Alignment - This represents the way the character's actions are viewed by society in general as a whole. This doesn't say a character is good or bad, only the way other people in general see him/her as. This range goes from -10 though 10. -1, 0 and 1 are considered neutral and all characters start out with one of those stats. Beyond that is when people start to take notice of their actions. Also when dealing with characters with very high/low alignments they will act differently and will not do certain jobs. Once a character is no longer considered neutral, they cannot get out of that alignment bracket, though they can go up and down within it.

Reputation - This is the most volatile of all the Traits. All characters who don't come from a dynasty start off with a reputation of 1. Those that come from dynasty's start off 1 lower than their parent's reputation. All Radicals (explained later) will have a minimum of 10. This trait measures how well a character is know, not liked. The higher the reputation, the more he's known and the more able u are to hire him if he's outside your civ. However, higher reputations also require more lucrative offers (explained below). Reputation is increased and decreased in many ways, namely as time passes (reputation tends toward shifting 7 if no other modifiers are out there. Other things that can raise it; when the character is hired, were successful at a job, been promoted, very few in that profession. Some that could lower; fired from a office, overthrown, unsuccessful. This is by far incomplete and probably highly inaccurate, but I hope you get the idea.

Intuition - This represents a character's instincts, common sense, perception and daily living knowledge. Those with high intuitions usually are able to think fast (although not necessarily correctly). Low intuition doesn't mean that someone's dumb, it means they might be inexperienced or somewhat mentally imbalanced. Intuition like education will probably not change that much, but if so will only go up and by not more than 2.

Willpower - This is the drive for success of a person, there ability to resist charismatic leaders (and resist being hired) and the ability to be efficient. Those with high willpower will be risk takers, adventurous or dominant in political field. Strong will powered people are harder to hire, but are also good if you manage to get one. All radicals will have a minimum of 10 for their willpower.

Charisma - This is a character's ability to sway a person, group or populace through his speaking and actions. This character is naturally gifted (or handicapped) in this area and will usually make good in politics or religion. Super charismatic people are known to cause turmoil throughout history.

Edit: Accidentally hit submit button too early

Knowing that answering too much, might strip me of my "lurker" status, I simple can't resist. It's such a cool project. Still hope that other lurkers join in though.

But in response to the dynasties question, I must admit that I wouldn't like that option very much. Neither characters nor dynasties. But by all means make it either optional or as you general principle suggests: make it a small, non integral part of the game, which players can "dive" further into if they wish to.

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

Having now answered tons of questions from you, I'd like to ask one of my own:

A) How far into the future will the game continue?

One thing that always bothered me about civilization I/II was that the modern age had such an "end of the world" feel to it. No wonder - it was the "end of the world" or at least the end of the game. I think that's sad, because the real world currently has no end of the world feel to it.

So as you probably can sense, I'm all pro-future. Bought SMAC purely for that reason, and is seriously considering to get a hold of CtP - for the space race alone.

One of the books that spurred this interest, is a study by Gerard K. O'Neill (1927-1992), who was a physicist with Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study. It’s called ”The High Frontier” and basically describes huge solar power satellites as a solution to the world’s energy problems. Solar power satellites had previously been ruled out since they could never hope to compete with other energy sources in terms of cost/efficiency. O’Neill devised a pretty straightforward method of building these solar power satellites – Build them in space, with space materials. This of course required quite a workforce, requiring accommodation and life support, everything tremendously costly. But O’Neill held that once the initial workplace – “island one” – was in place, the process would inevitably speed up due to the already gained beachhead and the construction of solar power satellites would soon have paid all the initial costs. You can read an introduction to the approach in The Space Settlement FAQ

While I read about your project it strikes me that these studies would be a perfect basis for a possible Clash end-game. Not only has it got realism – it’s based on real studies. It could also be implemented without forcing the focus of the game away from Earth. I think that this is very important: a “crazy sci-fi” solution shouldn’t be implemented just for its own sake. For example: Don’t go terraform Mars or whatever – keep the focus on civilizations and their problems on Earth, the main theme of Clash.

But then again – why not stay on Earth entirely?

I think that this would overlook some of the questions of the modern world. One of the biggest problems of modern civilization is energy. Currently more energy equals more pollution. More pollution equals tons of ecological disasters from the ecology model. But since more growth equals more energy, it’s bound to go wrong sometime? This idea provides the player with a choice: Should the player reduce pollution, and consequently reduce growth, or should he invest a sum of money to open up a new frontier thereby providing deliverance to the “old” world? “The High Frontier”

I know that this might cross the 2050 limit, but on the other hand it doesn’t break it by introducing any “crazy sci-fi” stuff. At least I don’t think so. It’s all pretty straightforward technology – some even say it could be done today. I don’t say so, but in the not-so-far-future maybe?

"F) Yes. But only if they're based on a model (like the FE disease model - which is excellent) and not some random event generator."

Thanks for the plug to the disease model ... I'm happy to see that someone has noticed it!

I mean 50 years ago Kirk used his 'communicator' to talk to scotty on those away missions and we now use digital phones based very similar supposive technology. And we have TVs you can hang on your wall, the capasity to store all of shakespears works on a disc, have lawnmovers that mow your lawn for you, and on....50 years ago people wouldn't have thought this stuff ness. possible today. No one ever envisioned a world-wide-computer network and computers with more capabilites that could fit on a desk or even your lap!

quote: A) Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc). How many would you like to see in a typical game?

Not many but not too little either, something around 3-7.

quote: B) What social classes you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?

Must? I dunno.

quote: 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?

As much control as possible! I want to micro-manage everything!

quote: D) Do you find interesting/fun to play a "nomadic civ"? That is, a moving civ with no cities that could eventually settle down. For example, playing the germans as a nomadic tribe for a while and then settle at some point in history.

I'd be very interested about it.

quote: E) How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?

Internally stable? You mean like revolutions and stuff? Well, they should be that stable that the player doesnt have much problems keeping in control. The computer players, however, are a totally different thing...

quote: F) Do you think having disasters and deseases add fun to the game?

Yes, but dont forget to include positive random events, too.

quote: G) Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?

Not sure. It would probably get too bothersome.

quote: H) Do you like having population divided in ethnicities or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous?

Homogeneous.

quote: I) Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?

Sounds good for me.

quote: J) How much do you care about historical accuracy in a 0-10 scale? 0=doesn't care.

quote: K) How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?

Extremly important.

quote: L) Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?

I definitely want them, but I'm not sure how detailed they should be.

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

------------------
"Now Lone Star, you will see that Evil will always triumph, because Good is Dumb!"
-- Dark Helmet

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai on 10-04-2000 05:14 PM 1a. For the Wonders & Achievements what type of things would you like to see, espically in the use of achievements that don't have things to do with buildings such as crossing the world for the first time.

I don't know, but I think there shouldn't be too much of it. In CtP there's now a mod with 64 wonders (the plan was to have over 70 but 64 turned out to be the maximum) and after playing it for a while I came to the conclusion that that is simply too much: they loose their status of being special and make the game very unbalanced since often a wonder allows you to get ahead of your opponents and get more wonders before the other players which allows you to get even further ahead, etc. So I say keep them fairly rare and special. Sailing around the world, Pyramids, Apollo program, Age of Reason, Internet, Humane Genome Project, that sort of things. Have a good look at various mods and scenarios for CtP(II) and Civ2 and take only the best idea's from all those. IMHO you shouldn't have more than 50 or so wonders/achievements that have a large impact on the game (things with only a small inpact, e.g. only temporary effects, might still work if present in somewhat larger numbers).

quote: 1b. Also do plan to play a more abstract or more historical model?

I'd say go for history, it will add much more of a 'civvish' atmosphere to the game. One of the major disadvantages SMAC is IMHO that it lacks the atmosphere of reinacting history. Clash doesn't have to follow history exactly, it's not necessary that the Egyptians and no-one else will build the Great Library but if you just build 'an important library' then that will take away much of the atmosphere. A message like "One of the most talented writers in your nation, Homer, just finished writing the Ilias" is so much better than "One of the most talented writers in your nation just finished writing an important book.", even if the civ is Aztec.

quote: 2a. Do you like the idea of dynasties?

Well, it might work out as a nice feature, but don't make it too important.

quote: 2b. If so, do you want the player to have a historical dynasty for himself instead of necessarily being this immortal being as in Civ I/II? (note even if the dynasty collapsed and a new one took over, you'd be in control, but with differnt power political power level and structure maybe)

The problem with collapsing dynasties is that whenever a player doesn't like his/her current dynasty for some reason he/she can deliberately try to undermine it and make it collapse. A real dynasty will always try to keep itself intact. So I don't think it is realistic to let the player take the role of emperor but it should keep the role of being a immortal being.

quote: 2c. If you want dynasties, how would you like things to be handled in rebublics, democracies or other non-dynastical countries, esp. for ruling dynasties?

I would say, don't have dynasties at all in such situations.

quote: 2d. Again if you like dynasties, do you want them for every character possible? Only ones that have governmental jobs? Only specific types of jobs? Or something else?

Only for the most important postitions. Don't overdo it.

quote: 3a. How much do you want the character model to be apart of the model? I'm really asking how integrated you want it with the rest of the game. Do you see it as an add-on moreso or a intergral part of the game or sometwhere inbetween and if so, where?

Well, individuals have always played a role in history so they should somehow be modelled, but I wouldn't want to make them too important. I'd say that the leaders of important groups (social classes, religions, military) should be present as individuals and probably a handfull of other important people (artists, scientists, advisors, philosophers, rebellion/mercenary leaders, whatever) as well. I don't think there should be much more than 10 characters present in one nation at the same time. The influence of these characters should normally be fairly small, but every now and then someone with a exceptionally strong (or weak) character should arise and have a significant impact on the civ (in a positive or negative way).

quote: 3b. Finally, what characteristic should be used for characters? (Sorry, i'll take up some space listing what is currently used right now. Tell me if you like it and if not what you would change/delete/add: [skipping]

These sound fine to me, I wouldn't know what to change here.

quote: 3c. What type of skills should characters have considering the type of models? If you have ideas and post them please, also explain a little about what type of characters would use those skills.

quote: I don't know, but I think there shouldn't be too much of it. In CtP there's now a mod with 64 wonders (the plan was to have over 70 but 64 turned out to be the maximum) and after playing it for a while I came to the conclusion that that is simply too much: they loose their status of being special and make the game very unbalanced since often a wonder allows you to get ahead of your opponents and get more wonders before the other players which allows you to get even further ahead, etc. So I say keep them fairly rare and special. Sailing around the world, Pyramids, Apollo program, Age of Reason, Internet, Humane Genome Project, that sort of things. Have a good look at various mods and scenarios for CtP(II) and Civ2 and take only the best idea's from all those. IMHO you shouldn't have more than 50 or so wonders/achievements that have a large impact on the game (things with only a small inpact, e.g. only temporary effects, might still work if present in somewhat larger numbers).

Another thing is that these won't have effects like they did in those games. They will enhance things, but not break or bend any rules. Also the predictions aren't the same. So you build the Pyramids. Doesn't mean people will see them the same importance or in the long run the same way.

quote: I'd say go for history, it will add much more of a 'civvish' atmosphere to the game. One of the major disadvantages SMAC is IMHO that it lacks the atmosphere of reinacting history. Clash doesn't have to follow history exactly, it's not necessary that the Egyptians and no-one else will build the Great Library but if you just build 'an important library' then that will take away much of the atmosphere. A message like "One of the most talented writers in your nation, Homer, just finished writing the Ilias" is so much better than "One of the most talented writers in your nation just finished writing an important book.", even if the civ is Aztec.

quote: The problem with collapsing dynasties is that whenever a player doesn't like his/her current dynasty for some reason he/she can deliberately try to undermine it and make it collapse. A real dynasty will always try to keep itself intact. So I don't think it is realistic to let the player take the role of emperor but it should keep the role of being a immortal being.

quote: I would say, don't have dynasties at all in such situations.

quote: Well, individuals have always played a role in history so they should somehow be modelled, but I wouldn't want to make them too important. I'd say that the leaders of important groups (social classes, religions, military) should be present as individuals and probably a handfull of other important people (artists, scientists, advisors, philosophers, rebellion/mercenary leaders, whatever) as well. I don't think there should be much more than 10 characters present in one nation at the same time. The influence of these characters should normally be fairly small, but every now and then someone with a exceptionally strong (or weak) character should arise and have a significant impact on the civ (in a positive or negative way).

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai on 10-21-2000 12:29 PM Thanks for the input. I think u misunderstood a few things though.

First of all, I apologize for replying so late, I've been very busy lately. It's not a habit of mine (although it seems to be becoming one )

quote: OK. I agree with that situation. But there's a big differnace between that model and the one for clash. For one thing there are differnt levels so there wouldn't be too many extremely important wonders like the Library of Alexandria, but there would be a lot lesser ones like say Big Ben in London. Another thing is that these won't have effects like they did in those games. They will enhance things, but not break or bend any rules. Also the predictions aren't the same. So you build the Pyramids. Doesn't mean people will see them the same importance or in the long run the same way.

Sure, I realize that Wonders will be different in Clash, but I was just trying to show that Wonders should IMHO be rare and special, else they ain't really Wonders anymore, even if they only have limited effects. Wonders that are more limited can be more numerous, but should IMHO you still be carefull not to overdo it.

Realisticly, the world is full of Wonders, every nation in the World has at least a couple, but in a game you should make Wonders rare so people will view them as special, for gameplay sake. The Big Ben really doesn't qualify as a Wonder, just about every major city in the world has something that could be compared to the Big Ben. I can image you want to model it somehow, but if you ask me, it shouldn't be a Wonder. All that the Big Ben does, other then telling the time (well, it did/does more than that, but you know what I mean), is make people feel slightly more proud of the fact they are part of the civ that owns it. But the French have the Notre Dame, the Germans the Brandenburger Gate, the Dutch the Euromast and the Americans the Empire State Building; it all cancels each other out. So basicly the Big Ben is just another city improvement (or whatever you want to call it in Clash), but it's a little bigger than average because it's located in a big city. The actual Wonders should only cover the creme de la creme of the Wonders.

IMHO, even the original 7 Wonders don't automaticly qualify to become a Wonder in a Civ game. I mean, what did the Colossus of Rhodes ever mean to the people of Rome? To them it was little more then some famous statue. Just like the Arc the Triomphe is just some famous arch to me, its existance doesn't change my live or anything. The same goes for the Euromast, it may be Dutch, just like me, but that still doesn't change anything for me.
The Internet on the other hand, profoundly changed my whole lifestyle. In the same way, the Oracle of Delphi influenced many peoples lifes in the Ancient Age, so even though it wasn't one of the seven I think it definately should be included as a Wonder in Clash (or any other Civ game for that matter). The same goes for the other projects I mentioned: Sailing around the world, Pyramids (though that could be questioned, I mainly included it because it has always had sort of a mythical influence on people, not really because it changed the life of people outside Egypt), Apollo Program, Age of Reason, Humane Genome Project. All are project that profoundly had/have an influence on the lifes of people, regardless of where they live(d) (even if they lived outside the nation that owned/built it). Anyway, that's just how I think about it.

quote: Alright. That's fine. What about more modern ideas and such though.

Well, for the Modern era there are still plenty of things that qualify as a Wonder (more than in any other time period of equal length, I would say). Next to the ones I mentioned earlier (Internet, Apollo Program, etc.) you could think of Olympic Games, Treaty of Maastricht (basicly marks the unification of the EU), UN, Fall of the Iron Curtain/Berlin Wall, Coca Cola Company/McDonalds (or some other representative of the 'Americanisation' of the world), Micrsoft (a wonder with only negative effects can still be wonder ), etc.
For the (near) future you might have a bit more of a problem, but you can use you're imagination here. You could start with things that solve present-day problems to start with, FE Cure for AIDS/Ebola/Cancer, World Peace, Ozone Hole Solution, Global E-Bank, etc. and move on to other things that are likely to happen (eventually) such as Mars Landing, Moon Colony, First Contact (with aliens that is), First Cloned Human, First Android, etc.

quote: Important thing about this that will nullify those players is that the fall of a dynasty will cause internal turmoil and will cause civil wars or wars of succession, etc. Everyone will haveto worry about that though and keeping thrones too long can also cause that to happen if the ruler isn't doing a good job as seen by others he rules.

Though I'm still reluctant about this (and will probably remain so until I actually see it in action), I agree that if effects are dramatic enough it could work.

quote: Fair enough, though how would you represent the society today then where power does run in somewhat dynastical lines, although not traditional ones. Large companies who give control to there friends or relatives when they retire or in elections where the current ruler would nominate his succesor in political parties. I mean we can come up with new ideas and such and i was going to not have all dynasties by birth.

Hadn't thought of that yet, I guess that would be possible. But often in those cases it's not as obvious who the successor will be so often this would result in a power struggle (classic example is still Alexander the Great), so chance of a power struggle happening should be larger in Clash as well in that case (though with less severe consequences or some other form of compansation to keep things in balance).

quote: Okay that makes sense. One thing though, Dynastical character won't be counted in this and not all dynasties will be under your control or anyones. OK 1 question i forgot to ask. Do you want to see all the characters or just the ones under your control and those of great promiance, etc?

quote: Realisticly, the world is full of Wonders, every nation in the World has at least a couple, but in a game you should make Wonders rare so people will view them as special, for gameplay sake. The Big Ben really doesn't qualify as a Wonder, just about every major city in the world has something that could be compared to the Big Ben. I can image you want to model it somehow, but if you ask me, it shouldn't be a Wonder. All that the Big Ben does, other then telling the time (well, it did/does more than that, but you know what I mean), is make people feel slightly more proud of the fact they are part of the civ that owns it. But the French have the Notre Dame, the Germans the Brandenburger Gate, the Dutch the Euromast and the Americans the Empire State Building; it all cancels each other out. So basicly the Big Ben is just another city improvement (or whatever you want to call it in Clash), but it's a little bigger than average because it's located in a big city. The actual Wonders should only cover the creme de la creme of the Wonders. IMHO, even the original 7 Wonders don't automaticly qualify to become a Wonder in a Civ game. I mean, what did the Colossus of Rhodes ever mean to the people of Rome? To them it was little more then some famous statue. Just like the Arc the Triomphe is just some famous arch to me, its existance doesn't change my live or anything. The same goes for the Euromast, it may be Dutch, just like me, but that still doesn't change anything for me. The Internet on the other hand, profoundly changed my whole lifestyle. In the same way, the Oracle of Delphi influenced many peoples lifes in the Ancient Age, so even though it wasn't one of the seven I think it definately should be included as a Wonder in Clash (or any other Civ game for that matter). The same goes for the other projects I mentioned: Sailing around the world, Pyramids (though that could be questioned, I mainly included it because it has always had sort of a mythical influence on people, not really because it changed the life of people outside Egypt), Apollo Program, Age of Reason, Humane Genome Project. All are project that profoundly had/have an influence on the lifes of people, regardless of where they live(d) (even if they lived outside the nation that owned/built it). Anyway, that's just how I think about it.

quote: Well, for the Modern era there are still plenty of things that qualify as a Wonder (more than in any other time period of equal length, I would say). Next to the ones I mentioned earlier (Internet, Apollo Program, etc.) you could think of Olympic Games, Treaty of Maastricht (basicly marks the unification of the EU), UN, Fall of the Iron Curtain/Berlin Wall, Coca Cola Company/McDonalds (or some other representative of the 'Americanisation' of the world), Micrsoft (a wonder with only negative effects can still be wonder ), etc. For the (near) future you might have a bit more of a problem, but you can use you're imagination here. You could start with things that solve present-day problems to start with, FE Cure for AIDS/Ebola/Cancer, World Peace, Ozone Hole Solution, Global E-Bank, etc. and move on to other things that are likely to happen (eventually) such as Mars Landing, Moon Colony, First Contact (with aliens that is), First Cloned Human, First Android, etc.

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.

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.

quote: Well, even though Hannibal wasn't Roman he's remembered (with fear) until today in Italy, so I guess the most important enemy/neutral characters should be known to everyone, but I don't think that under normal circumstances I should have to deal with the union leader or Prime Buracrat of one of my opponents.