Tweet
Well, Conquest will be available to us all soon, which means some work will need to be done on a new version of the AU mod. This time around, I'm proposing the following:
The AU mod will remain a community effort. However, a semi-official panel of either 3 or 5 members will be set up to ensure this process runs smoothly.
The following are the panelits' responsibilities:
1. Identify possible changes to the standard game that fit into the AU mod philosophy, and present these in a clear and precise manner to the community via the Strategy forum.
2. Identify problems with modifications already present in the AU mod, and again brings these to the attention of the community.
3. Listen to the input of the community for help with 1 and 2. In other words, "the community" will often be the harbringers of change in the AU mod, and the panelists should be open to any and all suggestions. Note that this includes reading AARs and DARs for AU courses, as many scenarios are used as tests for the AU mod.
4. Formulate official proposals for any change to the AU mod (either a new modificaiton or the alteration of an existing). Present such proposals to the community for discussion.
5. Vote on the inclusion of each official proposal. Inclusion may only be on a semi-permanent basis (in case real-game testing is required to determine whether a change is good or not). Panelists cannot abstain.
6. Implement any accepted proposal in the editor.
7. Create and upkeep the official documentation for the AU mod.
8. Ensure that both the mod and the documentation are readily accessible the community.
In short, the only thing that's really new here is that the panel has the final say on what gets into and what stays out of the AU mod. Obviously therefore we will want good panelists. How to define "good"? Well, a good panelist will always consider proposals in terms of the AU mod, which I will reproduce here:
---
Philosophy of the AU mod:
The following list is in order of importance:
1. The AU mod retains the "flavor" of stock Civ3.
Any modificaiton which alters the game "too much" is to be rejected. Entire strategies cannot be made obsolete for example. Nor should new strategies be introduced which completely replace existing ones. There is obviously a real big gray area here, and it's the panelists responsibility to make it black and white.
2. The AU mod improves the AI.
The main reason the mod was created in the first place. The AU mod strives to force the AI to play better, and therefore offer the human player and more interesting challenge.
3. The AU mod offers the human player more strategic decisions.
This is otherwise known as "balancing": strong things are made sligthly weaker, and weak things are made slightly stronger. The idea is that if it's not entirely obvious what's good and what's not (and in what situation!), the game is more interesting.
4. The AU mod preserves historical accuracy.
Very few changes are made for this reason alone. Rather, it's more of a factor in determining which modifications are good and which are not.
5. The AU mod reduces micromanagement.
Not really sure about this one, but it's listed in the documentation so I suppose I need to list it here!
---
Note that any modification will be a balancing act between points 1 and 2,3 above. That is, to improve the AI and increase strategic options, it is necessary to deviate from stock Civ3 (that's what a mod is, after all!). However, the goal is for AU mod modifications to be easily conceptualized by Civ3 players (novice and veteran alike), and therefore easily and happily integrated into each and everyone's playstyle.
I hope the above makes sense to you all, and that you are all still with me.
One last thing: who will sit on the panel? We can either have a vote, or just agree by informal consensus here in this thread.
I personally think that alexman should, partly because he's the father of the mod (player1 is the grandfather, I guess), partly because he knows a scary amount about the inner workings of the game, but mostly because he really understands how to balance between the conflicting tenets of the AU mod philosophy.
I, Dominae, would also like to sit on the panel. However I will not be so bold as to nominate myself.
I will leave it to the rest of you to bring up other names.
Just to clarify: the panel will not spend their time debating their issues. That's the role of the community and the Strat forum. The panelists of course will hopefully participate in these debates. But ultimately the role of the panel is to end debate, not to engage in it perpetually.
Any and all comments are welcome!
Dominae
The AU mod will remain a community effort. However, a semi-official panel of either 3 or 5 members will be set up to ensure this process runs smoothly.
The following are the panelits' responsibilities:
1. Identify possible changes to the standard game that fit into the AU mod philosophy, and present these in a clear and precise manner to the community via the Strategy forum.
2. Identify problems with modifications already present in the AU mod, and again brings these to the attention of the community.
3. Listen to the input of the community for help with 1 and 2. In other words, "the community" will often be the harbringers of change in the AU mod, and the panelists should be open to any and all suggestions. Note that this includes reading AARs and DARs for AU courses, as many scenarios are used as tests for the AU mod.
4. Formulate official proposals for any change to the AU mod (either a new modificaiton or the alteration of an existing). Present such proposals to the community for discussion.
5. Vote on the inclusion of each official proposal. Inclusion may only be on a semi-permanent basis (in case real-game testing is required to determine whether a change is good or not). Panelists cannot abstain.
6. Implement any accepted proposal in the editor.
7. Create and upkeep the official documentation for the AU mod.
8. Ensure that both the mod and the documentation are readily accessible the community.
In short, the only thing that's really new here is that the panel has the final say on what gets into and what stays out of the AU mod. Obviously therefore we will want good panelists. How to define "good"? Well, a good panelist will always consider proposals in terms of the AU mod, which I will reproduce here:
---
Philosophy of the AU mod:
The following list is in order of importance:
1. The AU mod retains the "flavor" of stock Civ3.
Any modificaiton which alters the game "too much" is to be rejected. Entire strategies cannot be made obsolete for example. Nor should new strategies be introduced which completely replace existing ones. There is obviously a real big gray area here, and it's the panelists responsibility to make it black and white.
2. The AU mod improves the AI.
The main reason the mod was created in the first place. The AU mod strives to force the AI to play better, and therefore offer the human player and more interesting challenge.
3. The AU mod offers the human player more strategic decisions.
This is otherwise known as "balancing": strong things are made sligthly weaker, and weak things are made slightly stronger. The idea is that if it's not entirely obvious what's good and what's not (and in what situation!), the game is more interesting.
4. The AU mod preserves historical accuracy.
Very few changes are made for this reason alone. Rather, it's more of a factor in determining which modifications are good and which are not.
5. The AU mod reduces micromanagement.
Not really sure about this one, but it's listed in the documentation so I suppose I need to list it here!
---
Note that any modification will be a balancing act between points 1 and 2,3 above. That is, to improve the AI and increase strategic options, it is necessary to deviate from stock Civ3 (that's what a mod is, after all!). However, the goal is for AU mod modifications to be easily conceptualized by Civ3 players (novice and veteran alike), and therefore easily and happily integrated into each and everyone's playstyle.
I hope the above makes sense to you all, and that you are all still with me.
One last thing: who will sit on the panel? We can either have a vote, or just agree by informal consensus here in this thread.
I personally think that alexman should, partly because he's the father of the mod (player1 is the grandfather, I guess), partly because he knows a scary amount about the inner workings of the game, but mostly because he really understands how to balance between the conflicting tenets of the AU mod philosophy.
I, Dominae, would also like to sit on the panel. However I will not be so bold as to nominate myself.
I will leave it to the rest of you to bring up other names.
Just to clarify: the panel will not spend their time debating their issues. That's the role of the community and the Strat forum. The panelists of course will hopefully participate in these debates. But ultimately the role of the panel is to end debate, not to engage in it perpetually.
Any and all comments are welcome!
Dominae
But seriously it should be ok.
But I guess overall it was okay. My next one in November will be better (going to Maui with ONLY my wife 
Comment