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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...