Announcement

**The Joker** · July 18, 2000, 18:07

I would like to take care of the government/politics model.

As I have an economy model ready (I still need to post it, though) I would also be interested in that section.

The main problem with dividing the game into sections is, that each section is dependant on each other. We need to start doing the foundation for the game, which is map and population, and then add things on top of that. Population, economy and government are all very closely linked. Combat/units is one of the few things that can be developed more or less independantly from the other models (apart from the map).

None the less we need some organization, I agree on that. But we should always keep the organization wery loose, and avoid a hierarky of any kind.

**heardie** · July 19, 2000, 07:04

Thanks Joker, I for got about you .. sorry!
Yes I agree, with what you are saying, but having it this way does work. For an example see Clash. Done this way and worked great, in-face they have a really excellent design plan.

Basically the only 'job' of the Model Leader would be to summarize the loads of information and ideas coming through, into the best system, that is agreed on by everyone. I believe that Amjayee has an excellent population system. Dig it up if you like, it will be about a month or two old.

------------------
-Chiron Creators-
"http://members.xoom.com/acchiron"

**amjayee** · July 19, 2000, 08:07

I agree with both of you. We need organization, and dividing responsibility, and we need to start with basics, like map and population. That was the idea behind my list of basic features of the game. But ok, I will try to put together some population and map ideas, going little more into detail than earlier. Then we could build upon them the other models. But basically, good initiative, heardie.

**heardie** · July 20, 2000, 03:02

Thanks, Amjayee
Just tell me if you donnt want to be a model lead for any as you are a programmer.

**Victor Galis** · July 20, 2000, 19:03

I think I'll dig up the link to my combat model now Call for sugestions again.

**amjayee** · July 21, 2000, 10:52

I can take pop, build, and tech, as you suggested - unless someone else wants them badly. I'm not sure about companies, but I can do it if no one else wants. Though I don't know much about economics - perhaps someone with more knowledge could lead that discussion.

**The Joker** · July 21, 2000, 14:51

I think companies should be integrated into the economy model. I agree that there should only be one company per civ, which will act on behalf of the entire private sector of that civ.

Anyway, I would definately be interested in taking economy.

**amjayee** · July 23, 2000, 07:27

Sounds good. Economy and companies should be in the same system, that's for sure.

**The Joker** · July 31, 2000, 14:41

These are the models that I think we should have:

Map
Multiplayer
Units & Combat
Disease
Technology
Economy
Infrastructur, Buildings & Wonders
Religion
Population
Diplomacy
Politics & Government

Some of these models would be required in order to construct others (like disease, which is an addon to population). This means that some of them are important to make soon, where others (like diplomacy, politics & Government and religion) can easily wait some time.

I would like to take Economy, Population and Politics & Government. But I there are also other models that I would be interested in working on - Disease, Diplomacy, Infrastructur etc, Technology and Religion.

I think that we should concentrate on certain models before others, as some are more basic than others. One could divide the models into groups of different importance. The most important ones are Map and Population. After that comes Economy. When those are done the basics of the game will be set. As economy also includes aspects of Units, Politics and Infrastructur, it is really important to have a good economy model.

**amjayee** · August 1, 2000, 08:03

Also I'm interested in everything; I think we should have a model leader, who summarizes the model, and others could comment and give ideas to all models they are interested in when they have time. This way the model is not on responsibility of only one person. Also we should try to keep the models as up to date as possible; every time the model leader changes something, he should aim to update the model. I will try to show some good practice by uploading the first rough, incomplete model soon, and then keep upgrading it. Hopefully soon...

**The Joker** · August 1, 2000, 11:13

Amjayee:

quote:

This way the model is not on responsibility of only one person.

The problem is, that it might be! We are developing a game here, not just posting ideas. Therefor you can not just have a model leader, which makes a summary of the ideas posted in his thread. We need to develop models that can be used gamewise as they are.

This is the advice that axi, a Clash developer, has given to us:

quote:

1) Don't let one guy develop a game model all by himself. He is bound to take more time and he is in danger of overlooking some critical points. Not to mention that he might dissapear from the boards, leaving you empty-handed. The cooperation of at least two developpers is required (one had better be a programmer)and this work had better be here, on public grounds.

2) Do not let your models stay on pen and paper. Since you have alot of programmers among you, it's better to follow the "Bazaar" approach, as my fellow F_Smith has repeatedly suggested. If you lack the ability to begin some test-code on the model, try modelling on a spreadsheet (as a matter of fact try developping on a spreadsheet). This will give faster results.

3) Do not develop "models in a jar"; always have in mind that the various models have profound interconnections, especially those on economy, government, society and demography. Copatibility and à peu près equality in depth and development should be primary concerns.

The Clash team has to know about these things. After all they have been working on their game for a loooooong time now. And we should, in stead of trying everything ourselves, try to take advantage of some of their knowledge. This should prevent us from falling into the same traps as they have. That way we should be able to develop our game a lot faster than they have done with theirs.

I am convinced that the best models will be created, not by one guy working a lot on it combined with some scattered idea posters, but by a few guys, all dedicated to the development of that particular model, doing it together. The scattered posters will never get as deep into the model as the people working a lot on it does. This means that the basics of the model might very well never change, if there is only one model leader. In such a system the only change that will be made to a model might very well be cosmetic.

I have some experience with this from back in 1999 when me and some others were developing our SE models. We were a few people who really worked a lot on them. At first our models were very different, but after some months of constructive debate our models all looked a lot alike. Of cause they still had their differences, but the similarities were far more obvious. And the quality of these end models we WAY higher than any of the original models. We could never have reached such high quality if it wasn't for the synergetic effect of our debate. And although there were some people who just made a few posts in the SE thread, some of which even with ideas that we could use or viewpoints that we had not thought of, none of them ever got as involved in the process as the "hardcore" SE modellers. Our models were simply too long and too complex for most people to bother reading them. Therefor the suggestions from people outside our SE group never reached the same high level as the debate we had with each other. I am convinced that the development of these game models will follow more or less the same pattern as the development of the SE models.

Therefor I must continue to suggest that we have more than one person as model leader on every model.

Of cause the scattered posters will still be a great addition to the development of the model. They will give the hardcore model developers new ideas.

For an examble on what I am saying from right here on the OC3 discussion look at the map discussion. Although most people have posted in the map section, yourself and Guildmaster were by far most involved in the process. The suggestions from people "on the outside" may very well have been good, but since the debate was pretty long and complex, noone else actually thought as much about the map as you two did. Therefor it would be obvious to have you and Guildmaster as the Map Model leaders, in stead of having to pick one of you.
[This message has been edited by The Joker (edited August 01, 2000).]

**ElmoTheElk** · August 1, 2000, 13:29

Since we have so 'many' models we maight do a little promotional work. I don't think we have many 'members' right now, escpacially not who also make models, do some programming or trying to make art or anything.

Only one question: how? And more importantly: where?

**amjayee** · August 2, 2000, 00:04

Yes, this makes sense. If we can achieve that, we will surely get farther. We would just need more people. But I think we can make the basic models with fewer people, too. So, Map is for me and Guildmaster; population for me, and some other - I remember you Joker showed some interest in that. After those have the basic models ready, we can go deeper to other models. I'm optimistic about getting more people when we have gotten a little more "off the ground".

Announcement

Openciv3 - Models

Openciv3 - Models

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment