* Proposed Process for Clash Project - Team Members, Please Read / Comment *

[Mark_Everson]

F:

One source for our map layering discussions is at http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum21/HTML/000058.html . I think there is some discussion elsewhere, but since the search for the forums seems to be broken I can't find it the easy way .

This discussion is OT anyway... so the next person to talk about specific map issues or whatever, Please start a new thread .

[Mark_Everson]

I wrote in another thread some things that also fit into the process, so I will duplicate them here...

We seem to be falling a bit off our planned schedule . I am one of the transgressors. I had an outbreak of work-related activity and a bit of 'designer's block' on the Econ system.

However, I'm really feeling like getting an alpha version out asap. Also, I think that although we are lacking in many details, things as far as they're sketched out seem to fit together reasonably well. So I propose we stick to the original process and dates, and just have things in some areas a little less fleshed out if necessary.

In my absence the dukes IMO should also think about a first, relatively simple sub-set of their areas that we can implemented for the first alpha. Once we have those specs and the variable / interface information that goes along with them we can start coding on alpha1.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Everyone:

Dukes, could you report in as to where you are? What I need most out of those in charge of game models is the 'simple' version of their area that we will try and code into the first alpha. Try and keep this to the Minimum size that can still give a small flavor of your part of the model. We will build up from the simple models in the succeeding alpha versions. When the simplified versions are posted I will convert them into a crude coding specification so that we can get going on the code itself.

Thanks,

Mark

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Everyone:

I guess we need to discuss it a bit, but my intention had been to stick with an ancient-world-only alpha-1 just to keep things simple. A lot of the economic and military stuff will be much more complicated as we get into the modern world. I was hoping to avoid that aspect for now. What does everyone think? Any strenuous objections?


All of our coders except me are not going to be available at least for the next few weeks. So my preference would be just to implement what we have in terms of the simple models into my old version of Clash and document the heck out of them. That way we will have something that works after a fashion fairly soon even though I may be the only one actually coding. This would also have the advantage of letting the dukes play with their primitive models very early looking for fundamental problems.

Keep up the good work

-Mark
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited July 28, 1999).]

[Druid2]

Sounds like a workable 1st step.

[Lighting up my Hannibal Smith cigar]
I love it when a plan comes together.


sorry for the ancienTV reference.. for those who missed it.. The "A-Team" was a realistic-style (?!) vigilante-outlaw-goodguys show in which opposing forces could stand meters apart, cutting loose with automatic weapons, and NOBODY EVER GOT SHOT.

[Scooter]

I pity da foo'

[Mark_Everson]

I'm fairly far along with the alpha1 military model coding. I'm trying to figure out a way to distribute to those who aren't java gurus. No luck so far, but as soon as someone who knows what they're doing in terms of deploying java takes it on we'll put something out.

[Richard Bruns]

I have a couple questions regarding the timeline and plans posted here:

What went wrong?
And how will we make sure it doesn't happen again?

[F_Smith]

At the risk of upsetting Mark, this is the reason I'm pushing OO design and the 'Extreme Programming' methodology.

Sometimes I'm afraid I've been pushing too hard for OO. But do realize, a year and a half ago, when I first came aboard, I ended up leaving for a while because my attempts to push OO were completely rejected. In discussing the tech model, I pointed out all the problems that are now coming up, proposed a solution and offered to code up that solution.

Now a lot of time has been wasted, and nothing has been produced (except that one model I insisted on using OO design on -- the govt model).

I am certain that a failure to adapt this project to modern OO coding and methodology will mean the death of it. I do not want that to happen.

So please continue to be patient with me!

[Richard Bruns]

I originally posted this in another thread, but this thread is probably a better place for it.

---
I think that it could have been a mistake to concentrate on the military in the first demos. IMO the military cannot reasonably be modeled without doing other stuff first. The game world and code architecture won't be able to support it. My view is that the demo progression should go something like this:

1) Map Generation and Ecology Modeling to define the game world. This will be more of a test case then a playable demo.

2) Add farming, hunting, and the population model. Assume a primitive hunter/gatherer or agrarian civ with no real economy or advancement. Player controls all activity and the player's people are the only people.

3) Add basic economic activity and infrastructure. Now we are assuming early settled civilization. Again, player controls everything.

4) Add basic government, social, and riots models. This allows us to model an early kingdom with proper player interaction. This kingdom is still the only one on the globe.

5) Add basic military actions and diplomacy. This allows modeling of the interactions of multiple nations. At this point, the player/tester controls all civs.

6) Add multiplayer support. Start by turning the #5 interface into a true hotseat game, and then go to other communication types. I think it will be easier to get this done and debugged while the game world is still simple.

7) (Concurrently with 6) Develop the AI. We should develop and test it while the game is still simple. Once we know it is competent, we can tech it how to deal with the additional complexity.

8-?) Add technology growth in small increments. Each time technology allows something new, the other models are concurrently updated and refined. In this way, we slowly build up to the complexity of the modern world.

I think this would be the best way of building up the gameworld. We would be starting with the basic stuff and then adding things that rely on the earlier models. If we made sure that we had a good foundation for the later stuff, it would be easier to add.

I'm not suggesting that we scrap the existing work. I'm just saying that it might be good to put some of it aside until the basics are covered. I think that adding the ecology model after the economy infrastructure is in place would be much harder than doing the reverse. The game world should be built from the bottom up. If the task force and military model codes are the basis of the world, we will have a skewed modeling IMO. It may not be exciting to do the ecology first and watch the world develop, but I think it would make a better game foundation.

Obviously we can't go back to step 1 and follow the timeline I listed. We already have some of the models from later steps coded. But I do think we should develop an ecology only test case after we do demo 5. Then we should add step 2 while developing the final, scalable game architecture. After that, we can start transferring existing code to the new architecture in a logical pattern. This should go quickly because the code will already exist and the models would have already been tested. We just modify it so it fits the new architecture. At the end of this process, we should have a good architecture with all of the working models.

What do you think?