Give us feedback - answer our questions!

[axi]

Give us feedback - answer our questions!

It would help us a lot for lurkers to give their opinion on various issues. Something as simple as a few yes/no answers from half a dozen people could really help us get a better idea of the popularity of various features or proposals. Lurkers could, without much effort at all, make sure that our plans for various things sound good. So please take a couple minutes to reply to these quick questions about what you want. You'll be helping us make sure we produce the game you want.

Some instructions: Please consult the options below while posting your reply, and formulate your answers according to the numbering as much as possible, in order to help us into properly evaluating your input. Please DO NOT REPOST the questions along with your answers. This thread is reserved only for replies to the questions and nothing else. Team members who want to post new questions or rephrase the existing ones, please e-mail axi.

01) Technology: 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 (mirror) under Technology for a description of the new model.
a - Prerequisite based, as in civ.
b - RPG-like, as in the tech-model.
c - In-between.
d - Don't know/don't care.

02) Ecology: 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?
a - Stable environment.
b - Few effects, as in civ.
c - Detailed ecology, as in the model.
d - Don't know/don't care.

03) Population: How much detail do you want in the population model? Do you like having population divided in ethnicities (see social model) or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous? Do you also think it would add to the game if we modelled different ages/genders seperately?
a - Homogenous population, like in civ2.
b - Divide by ethnicities only.
c - Divide by ethnicities and age/gender.
d - Don't know/don't care.

04) Map: What kind of map do you prefer to play in? Would you like a cylinder, donut, cube structure, sphere, or some other structure? For those interested in the different types of models for maps look here.
a - Flat.
b - Cylinder.
c - Donut.
d - Cube structure.
e - Sphere.
f - Other.

05) Movement: 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.
a - Manually (with use of TaskForces and pathfinding orders).
b - Large scale operational combat system.

06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) How many classes would you like to see in a typical game and in what form?
a - Few default classes.
b - Many default classes.
c - Many custom classes created by a combination of default elements.
d - Many custom classes with unique attributes.
e - I don't care about social classes.

ii) What social classes (or elements of complex classes) you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?
a - Labor Class/Workers.
b - Nobility/Landed Aristocracy.
c - Capitalist Class.
d - Military Class.
e - Religious Class/Clergy.
f - Administrative Class/Bureaucrats.
g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.
h - Scientific class.
i - Other.

07) Ruler's power: 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?
a - Omnipotent ruler, as in civ.
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL.

08) Nomadic civs: 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.
a - Would be an interesting addition.
b - Would be unbalancing or useless.
c - Don't know/don't care.

09) Stability: How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?
a - Fairly stable, as in civ2.
b - Rising and falling, as in civ3.
c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL.
d - Don't know/don't care.

10) Disasters&Diseases: Do you think having disasters and diseases add fun to the game?
a - Definitely, go all the way.
b - Yes, but don't overdo it.
c - No, the randomness is spoiling the gameplay.

11) Provinces&Technology: Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?
a - Different tech levels, since it adds to realism.
b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated.

12) Internal conflict: Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?
a - I do not want internal conflicts in my civ.
b - I want conflicting groups that trigger events.
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI.

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

14) Fictional scenarios: How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?
a - Clash should be a strictly historical game.
b - Clash should be capable of supporting such scenarios, but this is less important than improving the normal gamaplay.
c - Clash should be made as flexible as possible.
d - Don't know/don't care.

15) Pirates: Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?
a - Pirates in strategy games are nothing more than a nuisance.
b - Pirates should be implemented in an abstract manner.
c - Pirates should be implemented in detail as characters/units/civs.
d - Don't know/don't care.

16) Wonders & Achievements: What type of things would you like to see, especially in the use of achievements that don't have to do with buildings (f.e. crossing the world for the first time, cure for cancer, women's suffrage, etc).

17) Dynasties:

i) Do you like the idea of dynasties?
a - I would like them in my game.
b - I don't like the idea.

ii) 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 thateven if the dynasty collapsed and a new one took over, you'd be still in control, but with different political power level and political agenda)
a - Immortal ruler.
b - Ruler belongs to whatever dynasty currently rules the civ.
c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow.

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

iv) 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?
a - For every character possible.
b - Only for specific types of jobs.
c - Only for the ones that have governmental jobs.
d - Only for the ruler.

18) Characters:

i) How much do you want the character model to be an essential part of the game? How much integrated you want it with the rest of the models? Do you see it as an add-on moreso or a integral part of the game or somewhere in between and if so, where?
a - Characters in a strategy game are nothing more than an add-on.
b - Characters should a integral part of Clash.
c - I would prefer something in-between.
d - Don't know/don't care.

ii) What kind of attributes should be used for characters?
a - Status
b - Alignment
c - Reputation
d - Intuition
e - Willpower
f - Charisma
g - Education
h - Other

iii) 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.

19) Rivers: Do you want the map to have rivers inside or at the edge of squares and why? Visit the relevant thread for details.
a - Inside squares.
b - On the edge of squares.

20) Demo: Which feature do you think should be our top priority for the next demo? Visit the relevant thread.
a - Savegames.
b - Map generator.
c - Map/scenario editor.
d - Technology.
e - Improved economics/infrastructure.
f - Culture/Ethnicities/Religion (Social model).
g - Government/Riots models.
h - Tile improvements, resources and settling.
i - Diplomacy.
j - Trade/merchants.
k - Military AI.
l - Graphics and GUI update.
m - Other.

21) Documentation: Which form of game documentation would be more useful to you?
a - Manual
b - In-game help.
c - Online documentation.
d - Something else.
e - I have a special gift for understanding obscure game models, so I don't need any help.

[axi]

A brief summary of the replies given so far (in the old guestbook) is provided here.

We would like to thank Xuenay, Locutus, Beor, VetLegion, Westergaard, alms66, Mikel, Brino, Twinge, Whitemage, jandreu, Starfighter08, hendrr, Simon Loverix, Snapcase, manurein, Dale, Yoav_Sissman, KrikkitOne, yin26, Mikael and Krum for contributing in the guestbook.

Xuenay:

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. He wants it homogeneous referring to ethnicities however.
4. I'm not sure of what the cube-like approach would look like, but if produces a more accurate result, then by all means use it!
5. Maybe a system like that in King Of Dragonpass?
6a. Not many but not too little either, something around 3-7.
6b. Must? I dunno.
7. As much control as possible! I want to micro-manage everything!
8. I'd be very interested about it.
9. 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...
10. Yes, but dont forget to include positive random events, too.
11. Not sure. It would probably get too bothersome.
12. Sounds good for me.
13 and 14. Extremely important.
15. I definitely want them, but I'm not sure how detailed they should be.


Locutus:

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. I really like what I read about ethnicities in the social model.

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.

6)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).

6)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.

7)a 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.

10) 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 ).

11) 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).

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

13) 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.
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.


14) 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.

15) 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).

16) 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).

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

17)b 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.

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

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

18)a 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).

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

18)c I think you'd have to look at where you want to place characters and give them influence depending on what their role in the civ is. A few examples:
The personality of leaders of important (social/polical) groups should determine how much polical power those groups have, so a group with a strong leader should have more political power than the government-type prescribes and a group with a weak leader should have less power. Maybe you could also give the leaders their own agenda that (slightly) differs from that of the group they represent and hence when decission have to be made the desires of the group depend on the desires of the leader of that group as well (I hope this makes any sense, it's been a while since I read the government model ).
If there's a prominent scientist in a civ, then the science rate of that civ should be boosted, the presence of prominent artists/engineers could make it easier to create masterpieces or other wonders, military leaders could make the army fight better, increase morale and make people less wary to go to war. Strong religious leaders could keep happiness in the civ under control or incite revolts, depending on how their relation with the existing government is.

VetLegion:

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

6)a 3 to 5, probably 3.

6)b 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.

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

8) I dont really like that, maybe put an option.

9) 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.

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

11) Dont follow your tech model sorry.

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

13) 0

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

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

Westergaard:

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. Ethnicity is a good idea.

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.

6)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.

6)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.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.

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

11) 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.

12) 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.

13) 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.

14) 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)

15) Pirates is OK. Don't care much about pirates.

Whitemage:

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. [i]Yes to[/] Ethnicities.
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.
6a: Around 5-6.
6b: The stuff in the social model looks good; I don’t know if you should have a middle class or not.
7: Less control, but don’t take it to far(losing control of the military or the budget is just To Much).
8: Very much so!
9: I don’t know…
10: Yes, I like what I see in the modals.
11: No, it would get to complicated.
12: Yes!
13: When It doesn’t interfere with gameplay:7. When it does:1 .
14:12 out of ten! MOST IMPORTANT!(I hope to start a thread on this soon.)
15: Yes; moderately detailed.
16: Customizable Wonders( both in the game and in scenarios). Other than that, I’m not sure.
17a: Yes
17b: Yes, but I’m not sure how to implement it.
17c;Political parties maybe?
17d: Not sure.
18a: Very much a part of the game.
18b: One quibble; I don’t think you should force a character to stay in one alignment bracket. It should be hard, but not impossible.
18c: I’ll have to think on that one...

[axi]

Strafighter08:

1. 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. 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. Ethnicities add a great deal of realism and also new challenges to the game.

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

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

6a. 5
6b. 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.

7. should depend on the form of gov't.

tight: tyranny, monarchie, theocracy, dictatorship....
shared with others: oligarchy, aristocracy, republic, democracy

8. 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)

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

10. 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).

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

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

13. 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.)

14. 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.

15. They add a completely new flawor to the game. In times of war the civs sell letters of marque to pirates and they raid the traffic lanes of the enemy. Of course pirates are not 100% reliable. And once the war ends there are still pirates around who need "employment" (now try to get rid of them). Civs could cooperate (treaty) to patrol trade routes. There where many famous pirates in history (Francis Drake, Henry Morgan etc.) who would make an excellent place to use that character model of yours. FE Civ pays Pirates conquer a city and run it while being (secretly) allied with that civ (Port Royal, Tortuga etc.).

16. nice improvement of CTP2

17a. very much

17b. having an alter ego sounds cool (goody: castle/throne room like civ1/2 and being able to walk inside of them and having meetings with advisors/emissaries. hey just an idea)

17c. what about elections based on approvement of the different classes to your policies, if the player should loose he could still be the military leader while the AI runs the civ till the next elections; being not so patient or loosing several elections the player could still start a military coup, or if he isn't powerful enough lead an independence war with provinces that tend to have these feelings (why only being the victim of such tings and not trying them too,muahahah?)

17d. for the important ones

18a. integral part, the decisions of individuals shaped history and still do so.

hendrr:

1) RPG.
2) ... ecology model changes the landscape in realistic ways ...
3) I know it will difference, just don't know what now. Yes toethnicities.
4) cube.
5) moving units around the squares yourself
6a) 4-5
6b) (I think social classes has been thrashed enough)
7) like to experience less control (lifelike).
8) "nomadic civ" might be interesting for a while, but not if you are interested in world domination.
9) As long as I had forewarning of the impending disaster AND alternatives provided to me, this is acceptable.
10) disasters and diseases add fun? I guess as an additional challenge (as if building a civilization wasn't enough).
11) Yes. This would be very interesting from a "lifelike" perspective.
12) Yes I like having to deal with internal conflicts
13) historical accuracy? 9
14) Not a whole lot.
15) pirates? Yes at the units level (I know, the dreaded word ).

Simon Loverix:

1)Aimed research should be possible only when the experimental method can be applied and when a group is willing to invest in the research. However, even at the present research budgets are rather limited ; for example 50% of the Belgian national budget is spent on education, but only a fraction of it is for research subsidies. Consequently, the main research contribution should come from RPG, with the option of directing funds to additional research, eg for particle accelerators, which have little practical use.

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

3)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) 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.

5) Its a pain in the wrists to move all 'units' manually. I'd rather set a general strategy (eg guerilla, blitzkrieg), tactic (eg ambush, overrun) and list of priorities (eg cities x and y, obtain defensible position, conquer continent z) and let the AI do the dirty work. This makes it possible to work with an exact manpower for each square and keeps the number of instructions of the player low, also towards the end of the game.

6)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.

7 and 9)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.

10)They make it interesting, otherwise development is almost always linear.

12)This ought to be reflected in infrastructure that is (not yet) built.

13)I do care about the outline but not about the detail. A good system generates plausible situations.

14) That's for version 2.0.


KrikkitOne:

1. The RPG sounds good, provided there is leakage/loss (knowledge/experience leaking from one civ to another, or being lost from a civ depending on the presence/absence of suitable communication)
2. Dynamic ecology Good
3. well the population needs to be differentiated, but I think age differences can suitably be modeled by other factors (high birthrate meaning more demand/need for infant vs. gerontological health care for example) Ethnicities definitely (I'd prefer one with VERY slowly fluctuatable ethnicities, and a "technically" homogeneous population, but "cultural" characteristics are needed, of course their possible change is the desired thing)
4. Cube would be best, and Cylinder next best (due to the low importance of polar regions.) Donut should be avoided, as it is just bad [I'm assuming cylinder is the standadard Civ type map, rather than actually having the polar regions]
5. Given that Turns are where you make your decisions, Then I would hope for a more Operational mode, this makes it seem more realistic, in a turn you don't tend to say move here, but more conquer this country, hold this territory.
6a) probably at least 8 or so
6b) Nobility/Ruling, Rich, Middle Class, Poor, Clergy/Intelligentsia/Media, Military, Slaves
7) YES the player should have less power in a less autocratic government
8) not as a "special" but if the potential can be worked in...all you need is a mobile population (easy) and a mobile "capital".
9) Slightly more than real life, but not much.
10) yes disasters diseases are good, as long as Human players are given a bit of an advantage in their early starting position (not on top of a volcano, or on a region with no horses, ala Native Americans)
11) local variations in known technology, Definitely, especially for decentralized empires, although in many respects that should be minor.
12) Internal struggles should be the heart of any good empire builder (of course external struggles would be the lungs)
13) I would like it to be able to model historical situations, but it should not model them ruthlessly (ie If a game is at the point where it looks exactly like Earth 1935, 15 years later it Could plausibly, but not likely look exactly like Earth 1950, due to randomness and player decisions)...so probably 9
14) Version 2.0 definitely (although it should of course go a little bit beyond today's tech)
15) Pirates and such should hopefully be modelable in the game directly .

Mikael:

1. RPG definitely.
2. Add it in.
3. Hmm...not sure if ages are that important. If you can do it well, then go ahead, if it causes problems, don't care about it. ethnicities are a must.
4. Donut
5. A large scale operational combat system would be more realistic. Perhaps an option for tactical combat should be in, not sure.
6a. try to model as many as possible without making the game overly complex. Just the essential ones. 5-7 might be good.
6b. well, for instance: -clergy. -military. -aristocracy. -workers.(also includes peasants.) -merchants. They got the bucks. -educated class(writers, teachers, academic, scientists...) not very rich but educated. -slaves.
7. I'm all for increased realism. I don't want godlike power all the time, like in the Civ series.
8. yeah nomadic civs might be fun. Give it a try.
9. stability of empires over time: not stable at all!!! have civil wars, genocides, lose control of parts of the empire, clashes between cultures, between classes, etc.
10. yep, diseases and disasters should be in as an option at least. Adds realism.
11. of course, especially in the ancient times, techs shouldn't be the same everywhere in the civ. for instance, those that don't have access to iron shouldn't know how to build, say, legions.
12. yes, I do. this is similar to point E.
13. I care about historical accuracy 80%.
15. yeah, pirates and stuff should be in. Kinda like the barbarians in Civ2, but maybe more powerful and less random.
16. not sure I really care, do whatever u feel is better
17a.Yes
17b.Interesting, but having the player change personality all of a sudden is a bit strange. I have a feeling the ruler/president/king is *you*, for eternity, and that should be the only gamey element of any civ game.
17c. When there are elections there shouldn't be dynasties, no? Sounds logical
17d. Special characters, dynasties, for any job except ruler
18a. More of an integrated part
18b. I like that, fine by me. Or maybe I'm just too lazy to be negative

Krum:

1. The RPG-like system. I like the idea of every tech increasing/decreasing on a scale, little control by the player (maybe increasing in the later stages?), technology exchange between civilizations when right conditions are met, seperation the technology in three levels.
2. A big YES, i love the idea and the ecology model. I want deforestation, pollution and moving rivers
3. If you think modeling different ages seperately is nessesary, do it. I think it would help for example when there is a population boom, and when it ends there is a parge percentage of old people, who can't perform hard physical albour, also societies with more young people are more open to new ideas. Ethnicities, absolutely.
4. Of course, the best thing would be a sphere. A cube, could work, maybe with an option to view it from one of the peaks? I have this idea to warp the three sides in a way it would seem you're looking at a flat surface. I just have trouble imagining it From what I read, the AI needs a cylinder anyway... Im just worried by the fact that in Mercator there is much distortion. If you could make it in a way distance and area are somewhat accurate, it's fine.
5. I prefer managing armies rather than units. I'll need to read more about the military model...
6a. 4-6 clsses.
6b. Upper class, Lower class, Religious class, Military class; Bureaucratic class. Maybe Middle class too, but I don't see it playng a large role until modern times (but then, the same goes for Bureaucratic class). Maybe Middle class and Bureaucratic appearing when some preset conditions are met.
7. Maybe a little more control than the "typical" ruler, and smaller power in more liberal systems of course.
8. I'd like to be able to play a nomadic civ, also i think they shouldn't be differrent than normal civ. So you can have any degree of nomadism, which can change in either direction. Nomads -- very important. You can't even try to simulate ancient and early medieval history without nomads.
9. It should depend on the style of the player, if he gets expansionistic, empire gets more unstable and vice versa. China is isolationist, and has survived for thousands of years.
10. Diseases and disasters, yes. Maybe typical for the diven square, like tsunami in Japan, ect, is very important IMO. Maybe it could have an influence on the type of tech?
11. Maybe, but it might not be nessesary as the less developed provinces probably wouldn't be able to implement advanced technology anyway. But it won't be bad to have it, as an effect of less educational/scientific infrastructure & lack of transport and communication with the provinces that are ahead in tech.
12. I think I'd like internal struggle maybe even more than struggle between civs.
13. I don't want it to be nessesary to go through the stages the RL history has gone, but at the same time I'd like them to be possible.
14. Don't care about fantasy, sci-fi as a nice addition, future tech to the level that you think COULD have been achieved in 2000.
15. I'd like to see pirates, but even more important freelance armies, that might have ships (pirates), that could be bandits or looking to be hired, or both, maybe depending on leader personality.

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks Axi, looks great! Although it is going to have to be a two-window operation reading responses, since you need to see the top to know what the heck people are talking about And scrolling back and forth 89 times would drive me mad! When do we get the responses coallated by question ?

[axi]

Since I have never replied to the questionnaire myself, now is the time to do it, to show people how it's done. Note that these comments reflect my personal tastes only.

01-b-I'd love to hunt for XPs, not as an adventurer, but as a whole civ!
02-c-The ecology of the conventional civ series is laughable; however the ecology model goes a bit too far for my taste.
03-b-Everybody agrees that our approach on EGs is unique. As for age/gender, sorry, we have limited resources.
04-a-I prefer to play flat, but a,b,c, and even d are easily doable, so why not?
05-a-Though I am not a warmonger.
06i-c-See the model, it is simple, flexible and elegant!
06ii-all-I have repeatedly argued for the LC.
07-b-This is a very important feature and we have to work our asses out to make it work!
08-a-It would make for a great early game, where things are slow.
09-c-This is very important: no civilisation has lasted for ever!
10-b-Please cover only the really significant effects.
11-b-Sorry again, we have limited resources.
12-c-Would be interesting but hard to do.
13-5-With detailed enough models, scenarios can be made extremely accurate, while the regular game can be really realistic. It is a game however, so this is not a be-all-end-all.
14-c-Flexibility is the key.
15-d-Don't know about that; they should probably be modelled along the lines of barbarian tribes, bandits and rebels.
16-I had once expressed the idea that when you build a big bunch of infrastructure units (an expensive military unit or something else) there would be a chance of it becoming "wondrous". That way we could model capital ships like the Bismarck or the Yamato, skyscrapers like the Empire State, and alot more cool stuff. In general, I agree with the model.
17i-a-Since it adds to the fluctuation of a civ's caliber, then i'm for it.
17ii-b-Dynasty overthrow must have reasonable drawbacks of course.
17iii-Democratic regimes have dynasties, too, since political parties are in some degree controlled by them (see the Kennedys and the Bushes f.e.)
17iv-d-It would get out of hand otherwise.
18i-b-I highly support them, but they have to be optional since many dislike them (their effects have to be balanced though).
18ii-h-I feel that this model is too detailed and it will be difficult for the player to understand what is what.
18iii-Each character should have one or two job-specific skills (the ruler should have more) which would act as modifiers to important figures in the models. However the effects should in general not be quantitative.
19-b-For various reasons explained in the thread.
20-a-Hands-down! Followed by h,e,f,g and k.
21-a-I am not bored to read a little before I play.

MarK: I thought of collating the replies by question and also "counting the votes", but it's too much work, plus new replies will come in. Muy nerves are in shambles as it is.

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by axi
MarK: I thought of collating the replies by question and also "counting the votes", but it's too much work, plus new replies will come in. Muy nerves are in shambles as it is.

Yes it would be a lot of work... and is best left for another time especially since you're burnt out. Thanks for all your work! Its a Big improvement.

Question refinements:

I propose adding:

5. c A football-play type diagram where you put in broad orders, and they are implemented by the AI. FE "Attack in the north with 2/3 of forces, hold with remainder". This could be done by circling forces with mouse and drawing an arrow with the objective. (A few more things would be needed...) At any point the player can move down to the Task Force level to take charge!

IMO 5c allows you to do either a or b at player whim...


"06ii-all-I have repeatedly argued for the LC. "

There is no reason you won't be able to put it in with the new model! It is fairly flexible, allowing any number of social classes Look over the new version if you haven't I think Rodrigo did an Excellent job.

"21-a-I am not bored to read a little before I play."

Good Man I thought I was the only one who was willing to read a manual... But it seems we're still outnumbered! Probably for the best.

[edit] Sorry, I didn't realize I was already breaking the rules Axi . I can delete this post, and the other extraneous ones too, if you like. Just email me... I'll try to stick to the rules from now on!

[Dale]

Just realised I hadn't even responded to your question. How embarrasing since I've been lurking for months now.

1) How about splitting inventions and scientific laws. Then you could have pre-req based inventions, and RPG-like science.
2) C definitely. Ecology has helped to shape history.
3) B here. It'd be getting to finicky to go all the way to gender and age. Unless you're making a big deal out of suffrage, then I see no reason for genders.
4) A must be allowable for maps. No WW2 maps if can't have flat maps. E would make for realistic world maps.
5) Why not selectable in the options? Have the main map as the "operational" scale and if "tactical" is wanted then how bout a 10*10 grid representing the main map cell where you can move the individual units.
6i) B.
6ii) A, B, C, D, E, G, H would be good. Though I'd probably call C the merchant class.
7) If you mean a restricted rule as in, modern monarchy is a figurehead, and dictator has complete control, then YES!
8) A.
9) C.
10) B.
11) B. To a large extent, buildings built determine this anyway.
12) C.
13) 0. Be too hard on a random map. A lot of history has been based on location.
14) C. As a MODder, this is important. I'd like to see an event based scripting language, like in CTP2.
15) B.
16) Magna Carta, Round the World, natural wonders like Great Barrier Reef and Grand Canyon.
17i) B.
18) D. Maybe an option to turn on/off? *shrug*
19) B. Able to implement river defensive bonuses like in Avalon Hill's war board-games.
20) I'm happy just to play around with what you supply for now.
21) E. But seriously, in-game works best for me.

Hope this helps guys.

[S. Kroeze]

I was once quite an active member of the GGS team. Unfortunately almost all activity there has come to an end. Occasionally I have visited this Forum, yet I have never tried to play your demo. So my answers are almost exclusively based on personal preferences, not on experience or extensive reading of your models. The main reason I am answering these questions is because I am interested in the subject matter, not because I pretend to possess any valuable understanding about it.

01) Technology:
c - In-between.
I do not have any experience with RPG, so I hope to have understood your description of it

02) Ecology:
c - Detailed ecology, as in the model.
The importance of ecological change -climate changes, glacial periods, volcanism, pollution, deforestation, salination- over time can hardly be exaggerated. It should definitely be added!
I have not (yet) read your current model

03) Population:
c - Divide by ethnicities and age/gender, if possible
I would like to add religious affiliation. Age groups can be kept rather simple: children, adults (productive and fertile), elderly

04) Map:
e - Sphere.
Though I prefer a spherical map, this is in my opinion a relatively unimportant issue

05) Movement:
b - Large scale operational combat system.
I do not have experience with A&A. My choice is based on the assumption that warfare is of minor importance

06) Social classes:
a - Few default classes.
All pre-industrial societies can be described as rather simple structures, without significant differences

ii) a, b, c, e, g, i
d = b + farmers (generally)
c = merchants + entrepreneurs
In my view you need two sorts of 'middle' class:
i = yeomen + urban middle class (shopkeepers, artisans, liberal professions)

07) Ruler's power: Being the government of your civ.....
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL. What's RL?
There are few things I have hated as much as this godlike control of your civ. Even the most brutal dictators (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) or presidents during an emergency (Churchill, FD Roosevelt) had a rather limited influence; Stalin's rule can be described as a never ending war against the farmers; and Stalin didn't win this war! In ancient times, without an omnipresent bureaucracy, this power was most superficial.

08) Nomadic civs:
a - Would be far more that an interesting addition.
Indispensable

09) Stability:
b - Rising and falling, as in civ3
c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL(?).
BOTH

10) Disasters&Diseases:
a - Definitely, go all the way.

11) Provinces&Technology:
a - Different tech levels, since it adds to realism, if possible yes

12) Internal conflict:
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI.
Definitely! Without a game would be just boring.

13) Historical accuracy: 8

14) Fictional scenarios:
b - Clash should be capable of supporting such scenarios, but this is less important than improving the normal gameplay.
I like fantasy far more than sf

15) Pirates:
b - Pirates should be implemented in an abstract manner.
I wouldn't object to more detail. Very important: I hope Clash will start in a world about 90% populated. If so, nomads, barbarians, pirates, pastoralists will develop as a matter of course.

16) Wonders & Achievements:
I hope Wonders will be less oriented on buildings, because that is rather irrealistic. Please make it realistic! Which means that you can only 'win' Magellan by actually sailing around the world.
Do not forget great cultural achievements like 'Tale of Genji', T'ang poetry, Mozart, Homer, the Mahâbhârata, Parthenon (a building?!), Rembrandt. Nor do I think that every game should include all wonders each time.
Discoveries (source of the Nile, voyage to north pole, America) could also be organised as Wonders.

17) Dynasties:
a - I would like them in my game.

b - Ruler belongs to whatever dynasty currently rules the civ.
c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow.
Both solutions could be interesting

iii) In my view the player is not only the ruler himself but the entire government and the central bureaucratic structure (in the capital) that supports it.
In a democracy (or dictatorship) a party can control this government. This party does not end with the death of its leader.

iv)b - Only for specific types of jobs.
In pre-industrial societies family/dynasty was/is extremely important. Most positions of power -kingship, priesthood, military command- were hereditary in some way. This also creates the possibility of blood feud: Lancaster/York, Habsburg/Valois, Guelph/Ghibelline

18) Characters:
c - I would prefer something in-between.

ii) a and b are essential
The possibilities are without limit. Very important are Ability and Loyalty. Mugs and creeps can be fun too!

iii) military skills, leadership, economic skills, sexual appeal
What would have happened when Cleopatra had seduced Augustus too?

19) Rivers:
a - Inside squares.
Rivers create their own environment: marshes, flat lands or riversides.
Pre-industrial cities and towns -often developing around a bridge or ford (London, Paris, Roma, Babylon, Wien)- should never occupy several hexes. I can imagine that extremely wide rivers (Amazon) would occupy an entire square.

20) Demo:
f - Culture/Ethnicities/Religion (Social model) and
g - Government/Riots models, since they are closely connected
I should remark I have never tried your demo. This reflects only my personal interest.

21) Documentation:
I really don't know.

I hope this is of some value to you.
Good luck!

S.Kroeze

[korn469]

everything S. Kroeze pretty much applies to me as well


1) Technology:
c - In-between

2) Ecology:
b - Few effects, as in civ

3) Population:
b - Divide by ethnicities only

4) Map:
e - Sphere

5) Movement:
a - Manually (with use of TaskForces and pathfinding orders)

6) Social classes:
i) a - Few default classes
ii) d - Military Class

7) Ruler's power:
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL

8) Nomadic civs:
a - Would be an interesting addition

9) Stability:
b - Rising and falling, as in civ3

10) Disasters&Diseases:
b - Yes, but don't overdo it

11) Provinces&Technology:
b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated

12) Internal conflict:
b - I want conflicting groups that trigger events

13) Historical accuracy:
6

14) Fictional scenarios:
b - Clash should be capable of supporting such scenarios, but this is less important than improving the normal gamaplay

15) Pirates:
c - Pirates should be implemented in detail as characters/units/civs

16) Wonders & Achievements:
the development of democracy could be nice

17) Dynasties:
i) a - I would like them in my game
ii) b - Ruler belongs to whatever dynasty currently rules the civ
iii) just have the current political leader have a bearing on your civ's attributes
iv) c - Only for the ones that have governmental jobs

18) Characters:
i) b - Characters should a integral part of Clash
ii) h - Other
iii) i'll post more on this later

19) Rivers:
b - On the edge of squares

20) Demo:
i - Diplomacy

21) Documentation:
b - In-game help

[Kenjura]

1 - B. As per the tech model.
2 - C. As per the ecology model.
3 - C. Maximum detail.
4 - E. Sphere.
5 - B. Something higher-level than the current system.
6 - B. Many default classes.
6b - Labor, nobility, serf. In the modern age, replace nobility with capitalist or bereaucrat (oh, but they're the same), replace labor with middle and serf with lower (isn't it true).
7 - Undecided (pending lots of playtesting)
8 - A, interesting, but not important.
9 - C, though the player should be a bit better off. Somehow.
10 - B, don't overdo it.
11 - B, especially in the modern age.
12 - C, if the AI is capable.
13 - 8. It's right under ease of development/use and fun.
14 - B. Make it possible, at least in user-created scenarios.
15 - C, if done at all.
16 - As much as otherwise. Great achievements needn't be physical structures.
17 - A.
17b - B. I doubt C could work.
17c - They end, of course. They could conceivably be abstract dynasties, like the succession of party candidates for president.
17d - A, if for nothing else than flavor.
18 - C. I think they should be optional, but when switched on, essential.
18b - All are good, though perhaps a more limited list should be used.
18c - Not in the mood to launch into a big character skill exploration, but I do think the list should be quite short. No more than six skills.

19 - In squares. I think cities built surrounding a river are more common than cities built only on one side, but it probably depends greatly on the river's size and the technology.

20 - Anything, really, as long as I can be assured that the current interface will be completely overhauled on every level. Right now it's like a slightly user-friendly scientific program. Average people would give up in minutes. The interface must not get more difficult as the game grows more complex, but in fact needs to become simpler.

21 - In-game help. Nobody reads the manual anymore, get used to it. Context-sensitive help that's ready and waiting like a well-tipped bellboy is necessary for most gamers.

[Fosse]

These are all from the perspective of one who has been lurking for a few weeks, read the model descriptions, and is not able to play the demos at the time being. Also, I have little programming knowledge.

1)B. No question
2)C
3)B Since each ethnicity will be composed of all ages and genders, adding that would just be extra complexity with no real value to the player.
4)From what I understand debate on this subject is closed, but I would love to try out a sphere. A cylinder is just fine for this game though, I imagine.
5)A
6i and ii) I would like to see social classes that evolve and vanish in reaction to the government being run by the civ.
7)B. I would not find it fun to ever be completely powerless, but differing levels according to the regimes sounds fun.
8)A. I would probably be more inclined to play as a 'classic' civ, but would like to see AI civs like this. Given the short time that a civ could be reasonably nomadic I don't think it is very important that resources be put into giving players this option.
9)C. I want to see empires crumble and new states rising from their ashes. If my empire falls I will be happy to take over as one of the new smaller factions.
10)B. On the level of the Boubonic plauge, Pompeii style volcanos, or massive fires, yes... but I shouldn't know\care every time California gets an earthquake.
11)A. Part of the RPs can be imagined.. by me at least... as the efforts of spreading the applications throughout the Civ. Especially since the game turns cover so much time up until the modern ages, when tech levels (if not infrastructure and development) are known to all of the "provinces" For example Illinois has the same "technology level" that Florida has.
12)B and C. I do want different groups as actors that trigger events... but I should be able to ignore them for a few turns if I want.

13)8.
On a scale of one to ten for playability and fun though it's 10... if a compromise must be made it should be made with the PLAY being more important.

14)B.

15)B and C. I should need to protect myself and my trade goods... I don't want lots of highway man and pirate ship units on the map... but I should be able to take concrete measures to stop them such as building a navy to escort merchants.

16)I don't see why womens' suffrage should be a wonder rather than a policy choice (x percent on whichever government slider is appropriate). Accomplishments like sailing the world don't need to be modeled... if they are then maybe just a bonus prize of a few research points.

17i)A
17ii) It's hard to decide without playing and seeing. I do want to be in charge of my civ at all times, but don't mind if that control is contested. Giving me a different political agenda everytime a new dynasty comes into being would be annoying... my political agenda is MINE and I dont want to change it because I forgot to have any male children and now there's a new dynasty in power. But changing my power and influence among different political blocks seems reasonable when dynasties switch.

17iii) When modern dictatorships are established I see something similar to CivX power... with Politcal blocks still doing what little they can to stop me or influence me. In democracies I see The Voters becoming a political block and the dynasty disappearing. The Ruler political power can be influenced by how much the people like him, as well as by possibly deciding how much constitutional power the leader has.
When establishing a democracy the player and political blocks (including the former ruling dynasty perhaps, unless revolution is cause for the change, of course!) could "draft" a constitution similar to how they decide on government profile settings perhaps. This constitution would be relativly permanant, but could be revised if the player or strong enough polblocks called for a change. It would lay out which polblocks have power, and how much they are allowed to have withing a range. Perhaps the leader can never have more than 80 %, but never less than 40%. Or perhaps the church must always have 0%. Thus every democracy would be different.

17iv)B. Threre is no need to model the Jones Family Farm dynasty. But governmental posts before modern times and military, aristocratic families make sense.

18)C. Perhaps making them very influential to the game, but letting us turn them off when we start a game (perhaps let us turn off dynasties too... if the player doesn't like it why force it upon them?)

18ii) This would depend on what the characters job is, I suppose. But I don't see why any of these should be left out.

19)B. Cities are formed along rivers originally, not on top of them. It is nice to be able to think of them militarily, and leads to potential for bridge building projects, and gives bridges military and economic importance. I see no reason for them to be inside of tiles.

20)I haven't been able to play the current demo and won't be able to for some time, so I don't feel I can adequatly weigh in here.

21)A with B. The Civ/Alpha Centauri style manual with the Civlopaedia is perfect.

[Joe R. Golowka]

1) b
2) C
3) Definately C, that would be cool. And have classes too.
4) sphere
5) don't care, whatever works
6) i) c or d depending on how it works. I'd like to see the potential for lots of classes but it should also be possible to have a society with only a few classes. This should change over time as new classes are created and old classes destroyed. It should also be possible to have a classess anarcho-communist society.
ii) a, b, g, f
7) definately b
8) a
9) c Revolutions are one of my favorite parts of history
10)a
11) don't care
12) c - this would be very cool
13) 4 It should be possible for actual history to happen but don't force me to follow it.
14)b
15) d
16) Achieving equality of the sexes, exploring outer space, implementing various revolutionary policies (the five year plans, confuscianism, etc.), important writings, and others
17) a
ii b
iii they shouldn't have dynasties. They're only for hereditary based governments.
iv - either c or d
18 i c
ii - a, c, g maybe others
iii - I'll think about this and post later
19 don't care
20 e or g
21 c or a

[Mihai]

01) RPG-like
02) Detailed ecology, as in the model
03) Divide by ethnicities only. I liked the model in Seven Kingdoms, expecially the link between the ethnicity of the lider and ethnicity of the people (loialty level). OTOH there must be a limit of military units in total population – divide by age/manpower?
04) Sphere would be the best. Second option - CTP 2 like (this is a cube?). Third option is cylinder. From other POV I prefer hexes to squares.
05) If posible, like in ‘Conquest of New World’, if not, like in Civ. Also stack units in armies/fleets is a must.
06) i) c - Many custom classes created by a combination of default elements
ii) a, d, e, g, h
07) In ancient/feudal ages, omnipotent; after that more and more restrictive (like Senat in Civ1&2). In other point of view, more distant provinces should have more coruption, less loialty. An idea – you could name guvernors to rule in your name (automatic or just a way to ensure a more eficient direct command), but now you would pay attention to the governors loialty.
08) a - Would be an interesting addition
09) c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL. Anyway the reason of your troubes sould be linked to game ‘reality’. A negative random event souldn’t split your empire over night, just increase unhappyness/decrease loialty. If you were already in a bad position, then no wonder that now you have only half
10) b - Yes, but don't overdo it. The diseases model is very cool.
11) b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated
12) b - I want conflicting groups that trigger events.
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI
13) about 4 – The main joy is to build my OWN empire – Mihailand . As Westergaard said, realism is more important than accuracy.
14) b - Clash should be capable of supporting such scenarios, but this is less important than improving the normal gamaplay. I liked very much that CTP went a little into the future – even if some techs/units/improvements aren’t avaible yet we can predict them. There are not Science-Fiction, they are more Science-in-the-near-future
15) c - Pirates should be implemented in detail as characters/units/civs – So you can go after them and distroy nests of pirates. Like in Civ3, they sould respawn in areas covered by fog of war, but not in such large numbers. Better more often or more villages than a huge army.
16) Maybe more and less powerful. It would be nice if some of them will be related – gives advances in the same area, like +1 move at sea. Also you could make them obsolite after an age.
17) c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow; d - Only for the ruler
18) b - Characters should a integral part of Clash; ii) all
19) b - On the edge of squares – for strategic reason/ bonus in fighting
20) d – k
21) b - In-game help

[tniem]

I am about to play demo 7 for the first time tonight and i saw this thread. Here is what I think. Just brief answers for what I saw that mattered to me.

1) b. this is the one that would make me the most excited. A RPGesque technology system would make the most sense and be the most revolutionary fun thing in a TBS.

3. c
5. b
7. b
8. b
9. c
10. b
11. b
12. b
13. 3 (the most important thing is a fun game)
14. d
15. a
20. a

[Straybow]

My two bits:
01) c. Remember MoO1 science?
02) b. Changing ecology more trouble than it is worth
03) b. Ethnicity too big to ignore
04) a, b. Flat works for limited scenarios; cylinder is OK for world
05) a. Many historic wars/campaigns fought with relatively small armies
06) Classes affect individuals mostly. Societal effects can be generalized to be either conservative (resisting all change) or liberal (embracing change), with obvious effects. Slavery is a separate issue
07) b. As long as it isn't too limited
08) a, c. Yes if you mean the semisettled horse cultures of Asia as a model (strong advantages and disadvantages) but otherwise no
09) c. It goes with question 7
10) b. Optional?
11) a. Mounted units, ships, specials (eg, longbowmen) can't be made equally everywhere
12) b. Goes with 7 & 9
13) 8 if you're playing a historical scenario, otherwise maybe 4: believeable but not rigid
14) c. Any good model will be flexible enough
15) Given the scale of the game, abstraction is better (some doubled as explorers and leaders either before or after pirating)
16) Ask me later
17i) OK, not required
17ii) b.
17iii) political parties are equivalent
17iv) only to establish governance style (eg, hawkish) and to model political turmoil
18) EU2 model OK
19) Edges (I thought that was decided?)
20) eh dunno
21) too far in future

At 1 penny per thought I'm a few shy of two bits. Close enough

[GabrielGL]

Hmmm... well here's my thoughts.. I have not read thru all the above in detail, mostly because I have my own opinions.. I'll leave it to the dev folks to sort thru it all.

First let me say overall that, though I like to get into models and stuff, in order for a game to be playable, it must have, at least as an option, the ability to simplify it so a person can sit down and enjoy a game in somewhat less than an election cycle..

My responses and comments:

1. I dont' have strong feelings about the prerequisites.. I suppose a mix is good to the point it cannot be abused .. I like the idea of being able to get back "into the game" after a bad or unlucky start so "re-entrant" is nice.. but a good basic foundation(s) are needed I think generally.. nothing wrong with multi-path tho either..

2. I like eco effects as long as they are fairly clear and predictable.. to the degree that they require extensive management/resources, it probably will be a drag on the game.. maybe they can be switched on or off at the beginnning settings.. sometimes u just want to sit down and throw some smack.. :P

3. Ethnicities I think do not really have a positive effect on the game.. AC for example .. other than as curiosities many of the eth's r useless and u find that a HUGE majority of players just play the same races .. when it gets right down to it, the design of the races is simply not adequately integrated into the game.. NO RACE is one dimensional in real life, nor should they be in the game.. the eth's element becomes a hobble, not "ethical guides" which is as they were originally intended.. I guess this is the long way to say "NO"

4. Map shapes I don't feel strongly about.. flat is fine for scenerios otherwise design gets tough, but in play it is fine to have wraparounds of any type u like.. ppl will adapt..

5. I think assisted manual is fine tho I have no prob with "bunching" commands into groups.. most of the games I have seen that try more than just "helps" in this fashion tend to be very buggy so it must be a bear to program in a usable manner.

6. Classes are only an artificial "complexity factor".. if the game is adequately designed I feel plenty of complexity is available already.. (I have played the demos/models a good deal).. don't feel strongly about it tho; if u like it go for it.. hehe

7. I have no problem with ruler power.. in general I like the civ/AC mechanisms of having this vary with gov't model and having pro's and conn's of each element.

8. Nomadic existance, if really defensible in terms of being workable in the "time-frame", might be interesting.. it seems to be practical only in very primitive cases tho as it is unmanagable as a productive form of society..

9. I dont' know a lot about the effects of stability.. my bias is fairly stable with maybe long-term cycles only as long as there are workable methods of dealing with it. .. if there r no tools to deal with (manage/minimize) it is becomes only a frustration ..

10. all these kind of "randomizing elements" are only workable if u can turn em off as a part of the game settings.

11. Province variation on the surface is interesting as long as management does not deterate into tedium.. This is my main complaint on most of the games like Civ.. u get to a point where finishing the game is not fun, it is just tedious.. AC has addressed this in many ways over Civ.. more of the same might be nice, but even it can be very tedious..

12. No real opinion and inadequate consideration of this effect.. I'd need to see /experience a game where this was successful...

13. Not of interest.. there are opportunities for this in scenerious for ppl who really care..

14. I suppose c is the right answer, but really history is unimportant to me.. i have no prob abstracting my game play.. Some ppl seem to feel rather strongly about it tho so incorporation, at least in term of capability, means a broader market.

15. hmmm.. if the civ's are properly managed, "pirates" r only a variable.. make em " settings tunable" is fine

16. hmmm......... I think there is really no need for wonder-type things .. a well designed game should not need em IMHO. I have no objection to em tho if ppl want em.. what real purpose do they serve in game play.. really in RL they play no part..

17. Dynasties? .. nahhh.. do they serve a useful purpose? or are they just accomodations.. if u like em use em.. I'll try to figure it out.. I dont' see much of a role myself for em..

18. I suppose char is mostly an "add-on" as I see it.. similar to "races".. I really believe they r pretty silly.. however if the game has inadequate depth in terms of it's playability, they can be added to "spice it up"

19. Rivers shd be in-square.. on edges they become very artificial..

20. Ahhh... finally to the demos.. a hot item.. of your choices I select (in descending order of importance)

-a (savegame)

-l (graph/GUI) .. only in one area.. make the windows more manageble (hide/reveal) and they MUST BE SCROLLABLE up/down.. the current model is unworkable for any but a demo.. there are tasks that simply can't be done when u can't scroll a window

-e (economy)... u have obviously spent much time on
this.. and if u are going to use it, pls make the demo/tutorial be FUNCTIONAL in teaching the use.. I feel the DAWN scenerio is actually MISLEADING as to the goals /objectives to be done relative to winning..

-k (Mil AI)

-d (tech)

-j (trade/merch.. only if this is going to have usuable game content)

-i (diplomacy.. not really important in demo version unless u want to make it a tutorial)

-g (gov/riot)

-f (eth/cult/religion)

-h (tiles)

Both of these next are aside from game but seem to generate interest in a certain group of players and get started on supporting the game release
-b (map gen)
-c (scenerio gen)

21. Docs
c-online docs (which can always be dl'd) I think it is too dynamic to worry much about now.. and really if the demos are well done so as to be a tutorial, little doc's is needed. printed manuals are passe

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Gabriel, welcome to Clash and thanks for the comments and opinions!

Originally posted by GabrielGL
-e (economy)... u have obviously spent much time on
this.. and if u are going to use it, pls make the demo/tutorial be FUNCTIONAL in teaching the use.. I feel the DAWN scenerio is actually MISLEADING as to the goals /objectives to be done relative to winning..

Hmmm. . . Could you comment on this with more specifics about this in the D7 thread? I have no idea what you mean, and its obviously important to have the tutorial text reflect important stuff. Then again, the tutorial is meant more to be a how-to-play rather than a how-to-win manual.

[GabrielGL]

hmm .. i guess my comments are a bit out of place... the teaching of the tutorial on Dawn relate a good bit to econ, tho econ plays virtually no part in the scenerio as winning really means stop everything and make lots of warriors in hope of not getting ur butt kicked before u even get started... the tutorial on the other hand deals with lots of stuff about econ and skills dev and tactical improvements while the real deal is simple.. make lots of stuff and once u get thru killing the badies, THEN divert your resources to chariots in hopes of getting that done in time for the last hurrah of the badies.. I hardly think this "gives it away" .. hehe..

BTW I love the use of tutorials to learn the stuff.. u guys are off to a nice start..

I guess my point was that, for the econ model, which seems very impressive, it deserves its own scenerio with real econ objectives.. i am not really complaining tho it took me many times to win the Dawn thing i thought i was just bad at it.. i kept trying to get chariots somehow and educate ppl, etc instead of kicking ass which is really what it's about...

[while i'm whining here I'd like to put in a word for "insert mode" to be the default editor mode, i HATE overwrite.. i usually have obliterated about half my stuff before i look up at the screen to discover my faux paux... embarassing you know.... ]

oh, and i want to congrat all of you on your regular and sharp attn to ppl who comment and for regularly and promptly following up on it.. thx. . it's refreshing..

[gjc]

10 - c
Strategy game is NOT place for Randomness.

13 - 10

18 - i - a

21 - a

[orange]

Let me start by saying I recently downloaded the demo and played the tutorial...and I was impressed. Very good stuff, especially by a group of people just working together on the net And not even 100% yet...can't wait to see the finished product

Now for the questions: I've bolded my choices for each.

Originally posted by axi
01) Technology: 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 (mirror) under Technology for a description of the new model.
a - Prerequisite based, as in civ.
b - RPG-like, as in the tech-model.
c - In-between.
d - Don't know/don't care.

02) Ecology: 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?
a - Stable environment.
b - Few effects, as in civ.
c - Detailed ecology, as in the model.
d - Don't know/don't care.

03) Population: How much detail do you want in the population model? Do you like having population divided in ethnicities (see social model) or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous? Do you also think it would add to the game if we modelled different ages/genders seperately?
a - Homogenous population, like in civ2.
b - Divide by ethnicities only.
c - Divide by ethnicities and age/gender.
d - Don't know/don't care.

04) Map: What kind of map do you prefer to play in? Would you like a cylinder, donut, cube structure, sphere, or some other structure? For those interested in the different types of models for maps look here.
a - Flat.
b - Cylinder.
c - Donut.
d - Cube structure.
e - Sphere.
f - Other.

05) Movement: 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.
a - Manually (with use of TaskForces and pathfinding orders).
b - Large scale operational combat system.

06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) How many classes would you like to see in a typical game and in what form?
a - Few default classes.
b - Many default classes.
c - Many custom classes created by a combination of default elements.
d - Many custom classes with unique attributes.
e - I don't care about social classes.

ii) What social classes (or elements of complex classes) you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?
a - Labor Class/Workers.
b - Nobility/Landed Aristocracy.
c - Capitalist Class.
d - Military Class.
e - Religious Class/Clergy.
f - Administrative Class/Bureaucrats.
g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.
h - Scientific class.
i - Other.

07) Ruler's power: 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?
a - Omnipotent ruler, as in civ.
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL.

08) Nomadic civs: 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.
a - Would be an interesting addition.
b - Would be unbalancing or useless.
c - Don't know/don't care.

09) Stability: How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?
a - Fairly stable, as in civ2.
b - Rising and falling, as in civ3.
c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL.
d - Don't know/don't care.

10) Disasters&Diseases: Do you think having disasters and diseases add fun to the game?
a - Definitely, go all the way.
b - Yes, but don't overdo it.
c - No, the randomness is spoiling the gameplay.

11) Provinces&Technology: Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?
a - Different tech levels, since it adds to realism.
b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated.

12) Internal conflict: Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?
a - I do not want internal conflicts in my civ.
b - I want conflicting groups that trigger events.
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI.

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

8

14) Fictional scenarios: How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?
a - Clash should be a strictly historical game.
b - Clash should be capable of supporting such scenarios, but this is less important than improving the normal gamaplay.
c - Clash should be made as flexible as possible.
d - Don't know/don't care.

15) Pirates: Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?
a - Pirates in strategy games are nothing more than a nuisance.
b - Pirates should be implemented in an abstract manner.
c - Pirates should be implemented in detail as characters/units/civs.
d - Don't know/don't care.

16) Wonders & Achievements: What type of things would you like to see, especially in the use of achievements that don't have to do with buildings (f.e. crossing the world for the first time, cure for cancer, women's suffrage, etc).

Long Roads = Trade Increase
First to circumnavigate globe = increase in ship MP

17) Dynasties:

i) Do you like the idea of dynasties?
a - I would like them in my game.
b - I don't like the idea.

ii) 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 thateven if the dynasty collapsed and a new one took over, you'd be still in control, but with different political power level and political agenda)
a - Immortal ruler.
b - Ruler belongs to whatever dynasty currently rules the civ.
c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow.

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

No Dynasties or an 'elite family' (IE: Kennedys)

iv) 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?
a - For every character possible.
b - Only for specific types of jobs.
c - Only for the ones that have governmental jobs.
d - Only for the ruler.

18) Characters:

i) How much do you want the character model to be an essential part of the game? How much integrated you want it with the rest of the models? Do you see it as an add-on moreso or a integral part of the game or somewhere in between and if so, where?
a - Characters in a strategy game are nothing more than an add-on.
b - Characters should a integral part of Clash.
c - I would prefer something in-between.
d - Don't know/don't care.

ii) What kind of attributes should be used for characters?
a - Status
b - Alignment
c - Reputation
d - Intuition
e - Willpower
f - Charisma
g - Education
h - Other

Unsure

iii) 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.

Unsure

19) Rivers: Do you want the map to have rivers inside or at the edge of squares and why? Visit the relevant thread for details.
a - Inside squares.
b - On the edge of squares.

20) Demo: Which feature do you think should be our top priority for the next demo? Visit the relevant thread.
a - Savegames.
b - Map generator.
c - Map/scenario editor.
d - Technology.
e - Improved economics/infrastructure.
f - Culture/Ethnicities/Religion (Social model).
g - Government/Riots models.
h - Tile improvements, resources and settling.
i - Diplomacy.
j - Trade/merchants.
k - Military AI.
l - Graphics and GUI update.
m - Other.

21) Documentation: Which form of game documentation would be more useful to you?
a - Manual
b - In-game help.
c - Online documentation.
d - Something else.
e - I have a special gift for understanding obscure game models, so I don't need any help.

[Mark_Everson]

Originally posted by orange
Let me start by saying I recently downloaded the demo and played the tutorial...and I was impressed. Very good stuff, especially by a group of people just working together on the net And not even 100% yet...can't wait to see the finished product

Now for the questions: I've bolded my choices for each.

Thanks for the verbal support orange

Good idea on the way you just bolded the choices, made your selections a lot easier to browse. If anyone else wants to do that way, they're highly encouraged to do so!

Thanks,

Mark

[indiana7]

01) c. Hunting for XPs as a whole civ sounds nice, but science should still progress through pure research (and a mage should be able to become better through study - instead of going about hurling fireballs to orcs).
02) c. Anything to make the game as realistic as can be.
03) c. See above.
04) e.
05) a.
06i) c.
06ii) all.
07) b. (internal struggle should be important)
08) a. But nomadic civs should still advance in technology (maybe more easily in different fields) and money, and be able to produce units.
09) c. For the sake of realism.
10) a. But there should be ways to prevent (at least some of) them.
11) a. See above...
12) c.
13) 2.
14) b.
15) b. Pirates are supposed to be an economic nuisance at best, not civilization threatening powers.
16) There should be lots of Wonders available, and some of them civilization-specific, but each one should not necessarily be unique.
17i) a.
17ii) c. But overthrown dynasties should still be able to try to take control again (instead of losing the game). Maybe starting a revolution, or becoming barbarians for a while... or trying to win he next elections.
17iii) Dynasties in republics should try to win the elections, by spending money, holding their reputation high and making specific promises (breach of which should result in loss of reputation). Or they could have the option of forcefully taking over, changing the republic to a dictatorship.
17iv) b. Perhaps characters belonging to different dynasties would behave differently, even disobeying orders or taking initiative over various actions. The player should be able to chose various people for a job (as with leaders in MOO2), trying to assign the job to a competent character while still keeping most dynasties happy, lest they band up against him. (too complicated?)
18i) c.
18ii) all! (and more)
19) b. Rivers on the edge of squares allow for movement/combat modifiers and also for "destroy the bridge" tactics.
20) don't know
21) b. Like the civilopedia.

On a final note, I'd finally like to see some realism in the time scales. A legion should not have to walk for 80 years to go from Athens to Rome (after training for about 300 years in Athens to be produced - And what, are the legionaries immortal? Or do they breed along the way?). A ship should not be sailing for 200 years to get from Europe to America. And an airplane should not need 3 years for the same distance. I strongly recommend making the turns much much smaller (ranging from 6 months to 1 each). Also try making the map squares a little smaller for detail's sake.
Sorry for being so demanding...
Keep up the good work.

[yellowdaddy]

right. HAVE WE GOT ANY RESULT YEST? THIS SHOULD BE A POLL OR A SEVERAL POLLS.

1. i'll say b., i'd like to see it in action

[definately not a.]

2. c. but at what price for map sizes!

3. more than just c. languages, and civ evolution from an orignin "people" to one of a few "tribes" to a range of unique "nations"

i don't like the idea of starting with the Romans, and syticking with them all the way to the space age - it's totally unnatural... i want to be forced to choose which of the split-offs from the origina ethnic group to play with.

so when i start with the Italic people, i have to choose between these

Italics:Samnites [=Picenes?]
Umbrians
Sabines
Latins [=Faliscans,Volscians]
Oscans
Sicelians

and only if i choose the Latins do eventually get to pick the French, Italians or Spanish etc...

4. a. Civ 1 style overhead e-w cylinder, or if it's possible without too much of a cost, sphere!

perhaps your nation should beleive in a flat earth, until one of your ships circumnavigates the globe!

5. i like the ideas of recuiitment, dying off, and not having to have loads of military units all the time.
i like the sound of the second one, at the end of the day most people would like to think they win a battle by skill rather than just having bigger or mure of a generic unit.

i think some kind of combination looks likely.
you'd need a military training centre and bases/garrisons - it should depend on the period, and evolve if you are playing from the stone age up to the space age. without a training centre or organised base - it should be just mobs of militia!
some of the elemnts should be researchable, ancinet phalanxes didn't have the same strucure or knowledge of WW2 combined arms!
i don't like pure province fighting - that's like Europa Universalis.
i wouldn't mind seeing a battle plan designer! so you can plan your campaign before executing it.

6. c or d.

when you look at the world it tends to have the same kind of socila divisions - India has a few more, sao perhaps the difference is in the numbers. in the UK we talk about workingclass, missle class and unpperclass, in Japan they have 4 classes. in hindu-bhuddist societies status is fixed, in chinese society you can move up through the civil service. but uniqueness willl just be in names or the numbers of classes.

7. definately b. it should be variable - in a monarchy you are all powerful in a democracy, you often have to have decisions rqatified by parliament - this leads on the the pros and cons of your choce of politcal system. but i think you should be able to design your own variations on a theme.

8. yes nomadic civs, i like it.. there won't be that many any way, and the drawbacks will make them a novelty - the Tuaregs, the Romany, Amazonian indians, Mongols...

9. a mix of b and c. and sometimes splitting or evolving into new nations. (see 3.)

10. b.

11. a

12. c. definately (see 3.)

13. 9 ... i like it, i want to do the "what if.." type scenarios - something you can't do so well in other games.

14. b. i think it will be a sequal type issue.

15. i like the idea of c. it creates atmosphere, Taiwan used to be run as a pirate state, and the chinese recruitesd pirates for military purposes. have assasins and bountyhunters too - characters are great. Criminal organisation simulation would be mint.

16. yes, the invention of fire, crossing the world, stuff like that - the buildings are less interesting.

17. yes dynasties is ok (see 15) might be interesting if dynasties intermarried, political consequences for national policy.

definatley c. so you can build up a history of your nation.

in a non-dynastiucal system, they are overthrown or become a cosmetic feature as in Europe.

b. you only need the ruler and immediate family memebers who rule a province or something.

18. c.

a,b,c,e,f,g,h,

h being language, religion, ethnicity, sex, age,

a character is just a figurehead for a movemnt, but as a provincial, ethnic, religious, political, scientific, cultural or criminal figure they shoud affect the public of you nation in some way, to resist or be compliant with action os the government.

19. both - what about lagoons, and long thin lakes like loch ness! i'd like to see more variety in terrain - and i'm happy to draw it as well!

20. l or f.

21. b. like in civ 1.

[wombat42]

01)b, as it is in the tech model- cross-discipline requirements seem to be taken care of by unit requirements
02) Between b and c; it wouldn't be a big priority for me, and if used too excessively could get annoying, although it would add realism
03)c; things such as women's suffrage and age-based-voting would have a more direct effect on happiness; also, population dips after war for lack of male survivors would reflect reality

04)b is fine
05) a works for me
06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) b - many default classes; doesn't seem to me like they change much over time, only vary in size and power
ii)
a - Labor Class/Workers.
b - Nobility/Landed Aristocracy.
c - Capitalist Class.
e - Religious Class/Clergy.
g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.

07) Hmmm... interesting question. The answer depends on if you as the player are the ruler or the government. If government, then your decisions always reflect the will of the entire government; if not, you should be checked. Also, in Civ, the ruler is not all powerful - in Civ I, under a republic or democracy, the Senate can block a military action
08) a) I find barbarians in Civ really annoying, even though they realistically did exist for a time; On the other hand, it would be realistic...

09) c
10) b
11) b - what's to say you can't build a high-tech nuclear submarine plant in the Yukon Territory?
12) c
13) 9.5 - Some stuff that would have a negligible effect could be left out
14) a

15) c- but they should be beatable, as in you can eventually suppress them enough to not have to worry about them
16) Go ahead, knock yourself out; just keep in mind that wonders should have realistic effects - ie if you build the colossus, it's probably going to increase nationalism and therefore military morale and maybe trade, but probably won't help with food storage/production
17) Dynasties:

i) a

ii) b
iii) Could have a dynastic number, as in the French are in the 6th republic or whatever that number is
iv) a - a revolutionary would not have a gov't job, but could be considered a follower of a prospective dynasty
18) Characters:

i) c
ii) What kind of attributes should be used for characters?
a - Status
b - Alignment - factional, personality, or both
c - Reputation
d - Intuition
e - Willpower - for diplomatic AI purposes
f - Charisma
g - Education
h - Other

iii) Skills? Charisma above pretty much covers ability to lead... ability to govern isn't easily measurable, since a ruler could have really good advisers even if they're bad rulers, and advisers would be hard to make; military strategy for a general... not much else I can think of
19) a - ships should be able to move along the navigable rivers, like the Union ships on the Mississippi during the Civil War

20) Demo: Which feature do you think should be our top priority for the next demo? Visit the relevant thread.
It's all important, but a savegame feature would be very helpful; also, timetable for releases would be nice I check the website just about every day to see if the next version has been released. Take your time, though, programming such a cool game must be a hard task.

21) either in-game or online

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the feedback indiana7, yellowdaddy and wombat42!

I'll try to talk someone into collating all the results sometime soon.

Originally posted by wombat42
...timetable for releases would be nice I check the website just about every day to see if the next version has been released. Take your time, though, programming such a cool game must be a hard task.

Yeah, its very time-consuming, especially since RL frequently eats the teams' respective programming times. I frankly don't know when the next release is coming. Everyone, myself especially, seems to have had little time to work for the last month or so. We'll get back into gear individually, and as a team, as soon as practical.

That's why we generally don't have anything but crude goals for the releases. Without time to code and design scenarios etc. that we can count on, its very hard to have a good idea when the next version will be here. . .

That's the hazard of an all-volunteer part-time effort. Then again because its that way we can try out new and innovative approaches to the genre that the commercial houses mostly don't seem willing to try because of the risk.

[yellowdaddy]

hear hear!

[jbl18]

01)
b - RPG-like, as in the tech-model.

02) Ecology: a - Stable environment.
b - Few effects, as in civ.

03) Population:
b - Divide by ethnicities only.

04) Map: What kind of map do you prefer to play in? Would you like a cylinder, donut, cube structure, sphere, or some other structure? For those interested in the different types of models for maps look here.
a - Flat.
b - Cylinder.
c - Donut.
d - Cube structure.
e - Sphere.
f - Other.

06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) How many classes would you like to see in a typical game and in what form?
c - Many custom classes created by a combination of default elements.
d - Many custom classes with unique attributes.

ii) g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.

07)
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL.

08) Nomadic civs: a - Would be an interesting addition.

09) Stability: How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?
c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL.

10) Disasters&Diseases:
a - Definitely, go all the way.

11) Provinces&Technology: Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?
b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated.

12) Internal conflict: Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI.

13) Historical accuracy: 10.

14)
c - Clash should be made as flexible as possible.

15) Pirates:
b - Pirates should be implemented in an abstract manner.

16) Wonders & Achievements: Effects of Wonders should be achievable by all but give the first an initial advantage.

17) Dynasties:

i) a - I would like them in my game.

ii).
c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow.

iii) If you want dynasties, how would you like things to be handled in rebublics, democracies or other non-dynastical countries, esp. for ruling dynasties ?
There is always a ruling party and opposition parties. Opposition parties will do things as citizens want until the ruling party returns or joins, limits power for the duration.


iv)
b - Only for specific types of jobs.

18) Characters:

i)
c - I would prefer something in-between.

ii) d - Intuition
e - Willpower
f - Charisma

iii) Historical Figures that can be recruited both god and bad. Stalin makes a decent Dictator but a horrible Science Advisor. Einstein allows your science to flourish, but a terrible Manager of anything else. The heads of department should affect that departments efficiency.

19) Rivers: Why not both a - Inside squares- major river
b - On the edge of squares- minor river

20) Demo: in order
l - Graphics and GUI update.
a - Savegames.
c - Map/scenario editor.
b - Map generator.
h - Tile improvements, resources and settling.
g - Government/Riots models.
f - Culture/Ethnicities/Religion (Social model).
i - Diplomacy.
d - Technology.
e - Improved economics/infrastructure.
j - Trade/merchants.
k - Military AI.

21) Documentation:
b - In-game help.

[Sean]

01) B

02) A

03) A (but it isn't important to me).

04) F. (Don't care).

05) A (Don't fully appreciate the other options - sorry)

06) I) D
II) Generally, all good. But most classes have not existed through out. eg the capatilist is a recent invention. Mabe trading class instead? Problems with them all...so keep all I say.

07) A (Again I good idea but...I don't like the computer interfering, if you get my drift.)

08) C

09) A (I don't mind really - just anything other than the rampant corruption of civ 111)

10) C (Generally I hate diasters. maybe random good events as well?)

11) A (but I see the merit of the idea).

12) A

13) 8

14) D

15) D

16) So many options...I like the first to circumnavigate the world and bonus for achievments like that. But as to specifics and particular wonders I'll leave it up to others.

17) i) B (But it could add to the texture of the game. probably should be considered along side the earlier ruler control question.)

18) C

19) No opinion.

20) D

21) A


I hope that is of some help.
Sean.

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the feedback on the way we should go Sean! BTW I'm a big fan of P.J. O'Rourke, although the quote in your sig overstates it just a bit

[Sean]

Its hyperpole of course. Exageration to make a point. While government is essential to certain things (Police, defence etc), most things it touchs turn to custard.

Sean.