Apolyton's "Great Library"

[KenThur]

Nice job, jc... until the links broke down. Maybe U have fixed those?

Little suggestion. Why don't turn off your signature here? It takes up more space than your posts & it's cutiness wears off after we've read it twice.

We like your contributions here, save your cutiness for other places?

------------------
"Hm-m-m, doubt me you will?"

[War4ever]

quote: Originally posted by Carolus Rex on 01-19-2001 12:23 PM Heh, heh, heh...Yes, that is a good way to slow down expansion a little. Actually, I forgot that in the current game no wonders are allowed and that we can build max 12 cities. Then we have to make the most of what we got. Carolus

Carolus this is so untrue! One should never stop expanding if the land is good around them after 12 cites. I realize that was probably the limit for this particular game though.

Its my opinion that you need to plop cities down until your first citizen requires a temple to be happy at the very least. What your expansion plans are from there is your business... but by not doing this you risk other empires encroaching on your territory and/or taking resources and using them against you.

[Scouse Gits]

DIPLOMATS AND SPIES

This comprehensive guide by Slow Thinker should answer most questions on the subject of espionage.
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum1/HT...678.html?36#36

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

SG(2)

[Marquis de Sodaq]

This is a great store of info! One quibble, tho: Is there a plan to organize it? Having links within links makes for tedious searching. A truly great Great Library would bring it all together into some type of grouping. Some posters here have done a good job of titling links with intuitive clues to their content. Is there a need for an outline to start? For instance, a tree/outline of categories and subcategories linking the browser to the documents. And an index.

I realize this is a work in progress. If I'm putting the cart before the horse, let me know.

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[Scouse Gits]

MdS

I agree with your comments. If you go back to my first post you will see how I first envisaged the GL. However, we are all guests on this site and the final decisions on matters like this rest with Dan and Mark.

SG[1] has suggested we may be able to utilise our first entry in the thread to form an index, which could be edited in and updated. When we have a little time we will make an attempt to achieve this task.

In the meantime, there are many very experienced players around who will be able to offer help about topics you don't find in the GL.

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

SG(2)

[Slow Thinker]

REVEILLE!
WE HAVE TO DO SOME WORK HERE!

I would like to call back to starting idea of this thread. Although original idea of Scouse Gits wasn't accepted by administration of Apolyton, it is possible to do something else.

---

Let's see the current situation:
Bulk of knowledge comes into one of following categories:
A. How to play (strategies, tips,tricks...)
B. How it works (rules, facts, formulas, game mechanics...)

Knowledge of group A is created mostly by individuals and needn't to be processed using collaboration of many people. Jcarkey's "Compostion" holds main strategies well.

But organization of knowledge of group B is very neglected at Apolyton:
Identical problems are discussed in several different threads. People usually start a new thread since it is hard to find the appropriate past thread. Therefore it is very tedious if you try to extract a concrete information. It is really depressing: for example, if you watch how people starts debates about basics of the combat system again and again ...

Idea of "Compostion" may not be applied succesfully here. Knowledge of group B should be constantly updated and corrected.

---

This is my idea what should we do with group B now:

a) to debate about the best way how to organize and sort it
b) to define groups (for example caravans, happiness, barbarians, combat system, demographics window, governments...)
and for each group
c) to collect threads that contain any information related to the group
d) to arrange all knowledge related to the group into one place

Notes:
I think we should cooperate on building of each group: cooperation improves the morale.
In the beginning we should concentrate to few groups only.
[This message has been edited by Slow Thinker (edited March 19, 2001).]

[Slow Thinker]

This is my contribution to item a) "to debate about the best way how to do it"

---

Every group (for example "happiness") would be managed through two threads.
The first thread would be named "Threads: happiness" and the starting post will hold threads that contain any information about happiness. People will send names of new discovered threads (possibly with the author and date/time if few of posts is related to happiness).
The second thread would be named "Info: happiness" and will be managed similar way like "Info: diplomats and spies" thread. (Post 3: "List of my sources" will be renamed to "Threads that were completely included already" and it will contain a subset of the first post of "Threads: happiness".)
I would include short trick and tips too.

Words "Info:" and "Threads:" (with colons!) are essential: If you will let Apolyton to search for "Info:" within a name of thread then you will obtain a perfect starting page for all knowledge managed this way.
Of course, words "Info" and "Threads" may be substituted by more appropriate terms.
[This message has been edited by Slow Thinker (edited March 19, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Slow Thinker (edited March 23, 2001).]

[Scouse Gits]

As always, Slow Thinker, you cut straight to the heart of the matter -- We need some more organisation - this thread is already 112? posts long over three or four pages.

I regret that I have just entered the 'marking season' and will have little time for admin tasks until somewhat after Easter, but we have the will - the GL shall be built!

------------------
Scouse Git[1]

"Staring at your screen in horror and disbelief when you open a saved game is one of the fun things of a succession game " - Hueij
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Scouse Gits]

quote: Originally posted by Slow Thinker on 03-19-2001 08:17 PM It is really depressing: for example, if you watch how people starts debates about basics of the combat system again and again ...

I think new posters on the site welcome some dialogue with the existing members. I don't want the GL to cut out the social side of these forums. Exchanging views with posters new or old is part of Apolyton's success. Sure, a number of threads will keep repeating on a subject covered many times - so what? There is always something to learn for somebody.

I always look on the Civ2 threads as the daily news - the GL is more of the magazine for concentrated study. They complement each other.

I agree with you that organisation has to be brought into this thread. I think the idea of the Index is a good start.

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

SG(2)

[Marquis de Sodaq]

For SlowThinker's type a) info, I still stand by the idea of an outline/index. While simply linking to a thread is good, it falls short in simplifying the search - the primary purpose of having a GL.

One problem with simply linking a thread is that many threads contain many frivolous messages that have little place in a library. A 30-post thread often contains 5 posts of useful info, another 5 redundant posts, 10 personal comments, and a smattering of divergent questions and responses. If the GL is concerned with what is contained in the 5 useful posts, we should weed out the filler.

ST's type b) should be, as ST suggests, more of a document summarizing everything known about the topic. The Diplo/Spy thread is good; I like the idea of one post being edited to reflect what is currently known.

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[Slow Thinker]

SG2,
Firstly and unfortunately, I don't suppose we would be able to sort all the knowledge.
Secondly a such database would be large and searching within it not effortless so that some people would always ask more experienced players.
Thirdly people wouldn't end to communicate. They would just talk about more advanced and more interesting things.

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits on 03-20-2001 07:43 AM I agree with you that organisation has to be brought into this thread. I think the idea of the Index is a good start.

What do you mean by the Index?

[Slow Thinker]

SG(2),

There could be two or more distinguished categories of links :
a)links to threads as "Info: diplomats and spies" (with higher value of information, with higher density of information)
b)link to threads with any information related to the topic.

But, if you will try to index threads with any information, a detailed index (Sabotage,Poisoning,Bribing,...) would be very very laborious: It would be easier to build threads of type "Info: ..." first and then index these threads.

I would suggest a brief index (just one term: "diplomats and spies")in the beginning. It will be laborious enough.

If I compare a detailed index and hierarchical structure, I would prefer hierarchical structure: you know, Civ has very logical and serried structure...

[Marquis de Sodaq]

ST and SG(2), what I have in mind is similar to what both of you suggest above. By outline I mean a hierarchical tree showing all topics linked. For example:
1. Spy
a. sabotage
b. steal tech
and so on with links to the info. I put it out as an idea to organizing divergent threads as they typically take shape in the forums. However, if the useless filler posts are weeded out, this form may not be useful.

An brief index would be more appropriate for sources such as the "Diplomats and Spies" example we've talked about. I agree with ST that CivII offers an excellent begin point for this format; Particular game elements (ST's type A info), such as Spies, Hills, OCC, can easily be linked by a topic in the index. Subtopics need not be linked, but could simply provide the browser details about what is contained in the linked thread/post.

As far as the database being too large - there's just too much info for that to be any different. Organization is the key to simplifying large databases. In my real life I manage a database of some 300,000 always changing land records with 200 columns of data each. It's monstrous, but made simple by having been created with DESIGN. While tedious, putting this sort of thing together goes faster than you might expect.

The final GL could be fantastic if the index is planned with a particular format as an end goal. I would vote for placing emphasis on the type of thread that "Diplomats and Spies" is. One link, all the collective info. If the topic requires subtopic links, good. This could be viewed as a two stage development. The initial topic links get made first. Any very long posts or threads that need subtopic links could follow as needed, once the material is more or less solidified. Cross references might only be needed for linking themes for which the browser does not know the particular game element. Examples might be "maximizing shield production," with links to strategies; or "bribery," with links to government forms and spies. This could by nature only follow the initial organization - a spin on the keyword issue you discussed above.

Before this becomes an essay, I'll close and look for your responses!

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[Scouse Gits]

ST

As SGs have the first post in this thread we can edit in an alphabetical index.

This does not solve all the problems as there are many ways to categorise information; but it would be a start. It sounds quite simple but a good index has many cross references which makes the job more complex. For example your work on Diplomats and Spies would appear under "D" as well as "S". In addition, we would have to consider including cross references as follows:

Sabotage
Poisoning
Bribing
Revolts
Stealing
City Investigation
Embassies
Vet Spies ... and so on ...

------------
SG(2)


[This message has been edited by Scouse Gits (edited March 20, 2001).]

[Slow Thinker]

Marquis de Sodaq, I am not sure what do you mean by
outline: one level outline or hierarchical one?
index: a lexicographic index?

About index:
A "search" feature is built-in Apolyton (you may choose a forum to search in). If we would persuade admins to create a specific forum...

I had an idea of a special indexing, look at "A New Forum: Civ2 Research". Search for "keyword". The first sentence is "I think another problem is more urgent:".
In fact, we could put "[keywords]" directly into threads, not to names of threads, but serching would be slower.

About hierarchical outlines:
A hierarchical outline could be useful also for type B. First or first and second levels would point to threads of type "Info: diplomats and spies", next levels would point inside threads.

But i think that indexing and hierarchical outlines are not vital. The first step should be
1. any outlines / lists of threads
2. encapsulating (it is relatively easy in the case A. but more laborious in the case B. (threads of type "Info: dips and spies"))
[This message has been edited by Slow Thinker (edited March 23, 2001).]