Announcement

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 00:36

I will take my step at bridging the gap here, and probably make it worse .

Richard:

F_Smith as I see it is working at the basics underlying the system. Both for coding purposes, and because he thinks a 'good' object model is a powerful contributor to the design. He is mostly proposing (again as I read it) a foundation for the current (your) system in terms of objects. The details you are looking for, he means to substantially be the same as in the standard system. Obviously there would be some secondary changes resulting from his proposed approach.

As I see it, the major thing we've been discussing is the object that holds tech. (Putting aside this infra idea for the moment) F_Smith wants tech to be at the EG level, Richard (and me too) at the civ level, or at most province level. By putting an overall tech object pointer at the EG level we can have Both solutions. For the EG level model this means each EG has its own unique Tech object which does all the complex things F_Smith wants (and Enormous computational and other baggage IMO, but that is another discussion). Simply by having a checkbox that says 'Tech at civ level' you can instead have Every EG in the civ have its tech object pointer point to The Same 'civ' tech object. Then you would sum over what RPs are being produced in the civ could be applied once to the overall 'civ' tech. When that tech object changes all the EGs tech pointers point to the new modified object and things are basically the same as if there only Were one tech object, associated with the civ.

So to recap, there isn't much in F_Smith's posts since he is intending IMO to just use your system, but at a different level, or associating storage with different objects than you intended. I see no problem with a limited amount of this provided the 'standard' system gets coded along with any other options.

Hope this helps...

**F_Smith** · September 23, 2000, 05:40

Richard:

Your breakdown of the 'civilization' object is not how this will be coded, I'm afraid. I'm going to stick with the OO design I posted above. But it will allow that functionality, you can set all EG's in a civ to point to the exact same knowledge objects. You will have your tiers -- have no fear.

Just to reiterate, for your amusement:

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 08:41

quote:

Originally posted by F_Smith on 09-23-2000 05:40 AM[*]Either the civ will hold a collection of 'theory' objects or the infrastructure objects in that civ will hold 'theory' objects.

I Still don't get this. People should be the posessors of Tech. As you pointed out in your basic design. They, for simplicity should have All the tech objects, including theory!!! Why should theory be at the civ level? If people have skills at the EG in Square level how can you Possibly say that the theory understood in England is the same as in the American colonies in 1650? It defies logic. (I know for the way I want to handle it, all at civ level, it makes no difference. But I am anticipating possibly going to a prov level or lower in some cases.)

You seem to want to create a tech model for a cheezy RTS game here, where the buildings have mystical powers. We have bought your strong argument about people being the container of knowledge/tech. Please give some ground on this. The system you are presenting doesn't fit in with Anything we are doing as far as I can figure. Knowledge infrastructure should create RPs, and Nothing else. This seems both more compartmentalized (your goal), and more consistent with the real world. Beör thinks so, Richard thinks so, and I think so.

Please, Please settle for the compromise of storing All knowledge at the EG level, and allowing the game to act as if it is at the civ, prov, or EG level. Please can't we put this one to rest?

**Richard Bruns** · September 23, 2000, 10:26

F_Smith, why do you insist on making up new words for everything? The team has been using a certain definition of "theory" and "knowledge" for over six months now, and you come in and unilaterally change all of those definitions without any explanation. I went to the trouble of defining all of our terms so you could understand us, and then you just insist on using your own words without even giving a good definition of them. We will never be able to communicate if we are not even speaking the same language. Please start using words in the context that I defined.

quote:

Your breakdown of the 'civilization' object is not how this will be coded, I'm afraid. I'm going to stick with the OO design I posted above.

This is really anoying. I am trying to compromise on the system and learn about OO design, and you reject all of my input and insist on your own system with no explanation or justification other than "It won't work" and "Trust me." How can I learn what I am doing wrong if you don't tell me what is going on?

You keep referring to "game difficulties" without describing those difficulties. Could you please tell us what you mean?

I don't think that the sqEG's should hold knowledge. If agree that they should have a pointer to other knowledge objects, but IMO it is madness to create knowledge objects in each one. Consider:

There will be about 10,000 squares.
There will be an average of 5 EG's per square.
Each sqEG would hold 200 knowledge objects.

A quick multiplication reveals that this system would result in 10,000,000 knowledge objects. That is ten million objects that must input RP's, recalculate themselves, and apply the effects of their recalculation to other game objects. That is IMO madness. The player and AI will be thoroughly incapable of dealing with something that complex.

And this plan does not give the option to turn this detail off. F_Smith's system does not give players the ability to store knowledge objects at any level other than sqEG. If someone wanted to have one set of knowledge objects per civ, they would not have that option. Players are stuck with ten million knowledge objects.

Why can't we store the knowledge objects in the civEG's and have the sqEG's point to the proper civEG knowledge objects? This way, there would only be a few dozen sets of knowledge objects per civ. This would also give the option of storing the knowledge in the civ object and having the civEG's all point to that one set of objects, so the player would only have to deal with one set of knowledge.

Mark, what do you think of the hierarchy that I posted?

Mark's comment about RTS games reminded me of something. I remember that F_Smith said he made a tech tree for an RTS game. He made a tech system and proved that it worked, so now he wants to use the same type of system in this game. After all, why mess with success? He's said numerous times that he wants a Starcraft type system in this game.

The problem is that this game is very different than a RTS, and a system that worked wonderfully in Starcraft will not fit into the structure of this game.

Buildings simply cannot store anything other than information.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited September 23, 2000).]

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 10:52

Richard:

First, please cut out the cynical taunting statements. They have no positive effect other than making you feel good for the few seconds you write them, and each has a chance of pissing someone off. When you tick off someone you not only reduce our teamwork, but possibly cause them to go away for awhile while the cool off. I lost an hour of productive work time this week due to just such a statement by somebody else. So please keep the discourse civil, and if you are taunting in a friendly manner use a wink or happy face to show that. We need all the goodwill among the team that we can manage!

I agree with your general statements, but there is one thing you have dead wrong:

quote:

And this plan does not give the option to turn this detail off. F_Smith's system does not give players the ability to store knowledge objects at any level other than sqEG. If someone wanted to have one set of knowledge objects per civ, they would not have that option. Players are stuck with ten million knowledge objects.

Don't you remember the thing I wrote Friday about pointers (posted September 22, 2000 12:36
)? If all the EG pointers point to a single object, then there won't be 10 million knowledge objects, there will just be one set of Tech for each civ, giving something of order 10,000 objects. Just the same as you would have if the tech object were stored at the civ level. The advantage to doing the architecture the way F. Smith wants (tech pointers at EG level) is because of its flexibility. I agree with you that I think his dream of going all the way down the chain is basically impossible. But what if we decide we want to handle tech at the province level instead? In his approach its just a matter of changing a few lines of code to make this happen. The old way I would have done it, explicitly putting the tech pointer at the civ level would mean having to move potentially hundreds of lines of code, and coping with any bugs that crept in while pushing all that code around. So I have happily agreed with F. Smith that in terms of architecture this is the way to go. And the best thing is that all this flexibility does not require very much in system resources at all, the only extra penalty is the memory to hold 50,000 pointers, which is a negligible amount of memory. So provided the option to have tech handled at the civ or EG level is there, everything works out just fine.

**Richard Bruns** · September 23, 2000, 11:38

Sorry, I should have used smiles. I got rid of them after a few minutes because I finally realized they could be misinterpreted. Yet another example of my complete inability to communicate properly.

I thought that F_Smith said that knowledge would be stored in sqEG's, rather than having a pointer in there. Just like all the province objects are inside the civ, I thought he wanted all of the tech objects to be inside the sqEG's.

So my misunderstanduing of the programming language has caused yet another problem. I'm trying to learn the stuff, but I still cause trouble for everyone. Maybe I should just quit messing with all of this, go back to playing civ2, and let all of the programmers do things their way. I just seem to be getting in the way of the people who know what they are doing.

In eight months, my sole "contribution" has been writing complicated and worthless design docs that scare off valuable programmers, and getting in pointless arguments that annoy and waste the time of the existing game programmers.

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 11:55

Richard:

Chill out man! You are a very valuable member of the project, and have done a lot of really great modeling IMO. And the model will work Great once coded, I'm convinced! Don't worry about a little oversite here or there. If I got depressed about everything I've overlooked or forgot about, I'd be disfunctional! You are learning the programming stuff to help out the project. Don't get rattled if you make mistakes, learning without mistakes is almost impossible.

Besides,after all these plans, I don't think you'd be happy going back to Civ2. I'm certainly not!

**Beör** · September 23, 2000, 11:55

I have kept a low profile for a little while, enabling you to discuss some of the issues I seem to have stumbled somewhat inadvertently into.

And while y'all, being entangled in the discussion, might think that you've been going nowhere fast, it has been very interesting and I think you've gained some ground. I will return to this later.

I thought about my last couple of posts some more and found several inconsistensies that points to a faulty object model. This lead to some rather surprising conclusions, that I would like to share with you here. They might be totally wrong, and definitely somewhat OT, concerning the economic model, the infrastructure model, the tech model, the population model and the general OOD, but since they are related to the discussion in this thread I will keep it here for the moment.

First, I assumed that infrastructure cannot hold people and is immobile. And almost in the same sentence I mentioned a type of infrastructure that must hold people and can move: Military units. I suddenly remembered seeing somewhere that military units would absorb some people when being created, they could loose people during combat and if put on reserve or disbanded the people contained would return to civilian life. It is obvious that military units are mobile containers of population. The more population, up to a certain limit, the stronger the military unit (military strength of the unit must of course also be based on some hardware, but lets put that aside for the moment). Since the unit of population is the EG a military unit must contain EGs. Actually I had pictured military units as 'moving mapsquares with military capacity' thus being able to hold people.

Next I took this reasoning further: Since some infrastructure objects obviously can hold EGs it is reasonable to consider if not all EGs in fact should reside in infrastrucuture objects of which the military unit is just a special mobile case.

The next thing that struck my mind as odd was the fact that I assumed that people have an inherent capacity of turning ressources into output. Such 'semi-magical' powers are suspect. Elsewhere in the model it is infrastructure that has this ability of transforming some ressource into another - in the presence of people. In fact I had given EGs some infrastructure properties.

A thought that had previously crossed my mind suddenly surfaced. I actually also mentioned it as an exception in the post mentioned: Nomadic civs or migrating civs. They are exceptions since they have no land, and yet they have to produce output or they could not sustain themselves - how should this be done? Having no land they are in fact invisible to the civ/interface construction I proposed which is based on possession of land. Again I had this feeling: If they were in fact 'moving mapsquares' they could both produce, have population and be visible to the civ/interface.

A further thing that had bothered me earlier also popped up: When I read the economic model the concept of sites seemed very abstract. I couldn't put a finger on it, it just seemed wrong: In nature there are no sites, there are ressources. The finite number of food and production sites are limitations in terms of how much of these ressources man is capable of 'harvesting': How much land is farmed, how many mines exist etc. Sites are more like infrastructure: a way of converting basic ressources into units. There should be two means of increasing production from a square: Increasing the output of individual sites (the improvement of sites as covered in the present economic model), and increasing the number of sites (farming new land, discovering and developing new mineral deposits etc).

And finally I had been worried by the lack of cities, which didn't seem to be modelled very well.

And a solution matured in my mind (I actually woke up in the night - it was almost like Descartes ). You may like it and you may not, since it will influence many models. It is primarily a programming term, and would probably never come to the attention of the player. It might even be very difficult to implement, but here goes:

Imagine splitting the mapsquare into two layers:
First the basic mapsquare: the geosquare that keeps the square in place geographically, and holds the basic ressources: terrain, farm land, forrests, specials etc. This would in fact represent the maximum possible yield of the land. You could still express this as sites, but these sites would represent the maximum possible number of sites that could be constructed in the square, given all technology.
On top of this basic mapsquare we could place a very basic infrastructure object: I have called it a Habitat in lack of a better name. The Habitat would hold the population and a number of sites representing how much of the basic ressources are actually developed - this number of sites is equivalent to the number of sites now present in the economic model. Sites might then be separate infrastructure objects held by the habitat. They could be built as every other infrastructure object upto the limit of the underlying mapsquare, provided the proper tech requisites were met, FE if an EG reaches a tech level that would allow for irrigation or use of certain minerals (FE uranium) it would be possible to build more sites, representing the plowing of new land or the opening of a uranium mine). I don't mean that we should have 'uranium sites', they would still be represented as production sites, but acheiving a certain tech level would raise the proportion of potentially utilised sites, abstractly representing the mining of uranium/titanium/whatever. The habitat might even be capable of holding other infrastructure objects, although these might be better placed in the geosquare.

This way the present mapsquare object will be represented by one geosquare object and one habitat object. The combination will be indestinguishable from the original concept. The only extra thing is the possibility to build new sites up to a maximum provided by the underlying geosquare, but this could be left out - at least for starters.
'Well, so what' I hear you say.

Here it comes: A military unit is nothing but a mobile habitat! A mobile infrastructure object, holding people and a limited number of sites, representing the ability of the military unit to live off the land (of course the influence of this on other inhabitants of the underlying square would have to be decided). A further capability of a military unit infrastructure object is to transform the people present into military power. Similar a nomadic civ is nothing but a collection of mobile habitats.

Instead of having the empire consist of a collection of mapsquares it would consist of a collection of habitats, thus allowing the interface to 'see' nomadic civs, despite the lack of controlled mapsquares.

By making sites infrastructure, we avoid having EGs have inherent production capabilities, which streamlines the object model. The only object producing is an infrastructure object: For historical scenarios people would have to be present, but for SF-scenarios, fully automised, robtic assembly plants or mining constructions would be possible. Military units, being infrastructure object are no exception, allowing for cruise misiles and the like.

Other infrastructure objects could be seen as mobile or semimobile habitats: Particularly oceanic ressource collection could benefit from this: A fishing fleet would carry with it its own food sites (how do you like that Mark?), and likewise Oil rigs would carry production sites. The habitats wouldn't even have to be placed on the map, but could be abstractly off map, like orbital production facilities or mining stations on the moon!

Now it is getting really wild: You could imagine the same square having more than one habitat (akin to locations mentioned earlier). I am particularly thinking of having one rural and one urban habitat. The urban habitat could be constructed, representing the founding of a city. We would then have a way of modelling people moving from rural areas to urban areas. The city could have its own particular mix of sites, EGs, infrastructure objects etc. The implications are astounding!

All this derived from one object!

Off course I also have something to say about where tech belongs (basically Mark and I see it the same way), but I will post this now, and return later.

[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 23, 2000).]

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 14:16

Beör:

No cities?!? Do you think you could actually read the economics page on the Clash web site before launching into such speculations? I think if you are going to try and make object models for the entire game that you need to at least understand the state of play of what is going on here... You have been with us about a month now, and it would probably be best for you to read some of the original sources rather than relying on secondhand things that were mentioned by somebody in a thread that doesn't specifically relate to the economy. Otherwise, you are just going to end up spreading misconceptions about how things work... I have seen a lot of great ideas come out of you, although I haven't had time to respond to many of them. Please keep up the good work. But also try to read some of the background material, it will help to put your ideas in context. The Econ web page is a little bit out of date, but most of the things are still fairly accurate. The only major difference is we have gone to a production function approach to figure out how much stuff is produced.

F. Smith:

Could you read the Econ model on the web page also? Sure it would take about 20 or 30 minutes, but these things keep coming up over and over again, and it is stated quite clearly how things are supposed to work on the web page.

Infra holding theory, etc...

If you end up programming technology you can IMO store the information anyplace you want so long as it doesn't change the model function (a la business model) without substantial group buy-in. Just like was done in the government area. I was simply trying to use your own methods, which despite trying I obviously still don't get. I still think using infrastructure to hold theory objects doesn't make much sense. That implies to me that Albert Einstein couldn't utilize or push forward the theory of relativity unless he was associated with a university, library, or some other type of infrastructure. Now of course its a game model, and so we don't need to be completely realistic. But I don't see what either the object model, or the player, gets out of this. Schools/Libraries (actually educational/research infra in the current infrastructure model) can affect knowledge production quite adequately without holding a theory obect, just as schools can educate people without explicitly holding people in the object model. Such a concept is clearly possible in a different civ-type or RTS game. I just don't see what it has to do with clash.

A quandary about object models...

I am beginning to come to the conclusion that it is useless to discuss object models. We just spend vast time discussing them, but the discussions have no positive results. Why not just use whatever object model you like from now on in whatever you code? Our discussions never change your mind about the object model, and never seem to really educate us about how to do this black art. And on the modelers side, we are rarely convinced of the blinding logic behind the object model and usually just want to stick to doing the model the same old way in gameplay terms. One thing I have gotten from these discussions is that you want the object model to be able to simulate almost any possible rules framework for a civ-type game. Given that that's the case, one application surely is the specific case of the clash models as they exist and will evolve.

I'll try and get a book, whatever you recommend, about how to do what you're doing. But until I read it, I can't say I'm getting much out of these discussions, other than finding out the kind of game you really want to program.

I'm not trying to be provocative about this, it just seems to me this exercise isn't getting us anywhere based on many months of experience. Last night I was patting myself on the back that we had finally reached agreement on a tech object model. In fact, I just realized that if you end up coding technology, it will be coded using exactly the same object model you proposed above (before many pages of discussion). And that the rest of us would be happy provided that your object model could put tech at the civ level. An analogous thing happened in the government model. Again, after extremely long arguments and misunderstandings. So why exactly are we having all these discussions?

The previous bit and the coming statements aren't meant to hurt your feelings, or attack you in any way. It's just as the project lead I have to try and assess what we're doing that's being productive, and what isn't... please don't take this personally. I hold you in very high regard, and also value your skills, and the "sweat equity" you have put into the project.

I am really starting to come to the conclusion that you just want a rather different game from the way the rest of the project has evolved. You look at our models, which you don't like, and ascribe the difference to the lack of a good OO model. I agree with you that your style of modeling is most likely better for coding purposes. But I'm beginning to suspect that there are differences beyond coding purposes driving this. Even though our aims are somewhat different, working together can still get us all where we want to go. I just don't want the path to be rougher than it has to be . Any thoughts?

What do you do at work when the business team says "We want this exact functionality, code it any way you want."? If you add "And we're happy to try out any alternative approaches to the functionality that you want to try." that seems to be what we are effectively doing.

-Mark

P.S. I sent you an e-mail earlier today. I thought I would mention it here since previously I had the wrong e-mail address and I want to make sure it went to the right place.

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited September 23, 2000).]

**Beör** · September 23, 2000, 17:10

Mark

Well excuse me…

I knew you probably wouldn't like it

But I think you ought'a read what I posted rather than hold both hands up in defence. I never claimed that there were to be no cities, that was F_Smiths interpretation. I claimed that the modelling was rather vague. And contrary to what you think I studied the Economic model - and most of the other models - in some detail. In the following I have quoted everything that pertains to cities in your Economic model on the webpage:

quote:

The main economic action takes place in provinces, which consist of groups of map squares. A capital (usually city) square is the economic and administrative center of the province

Provinces in Clash will consist of a group of map squares and one or more cities.

Cities are the administrative and trade centers of provinces. Because of these important functions, the population density in cities will tend to be much larger than that in the surrounding countryside. Cities present both opportunities and problems of their own, due primarily to their increased population density. Squares designated by the player (or the people themselves, TBD) as cities grow faster (~50%) in population and development than the countryside, and the administrative center of the province (capital) grows 2x as fast. This factor represents some migration within the province. However city growth will slow, or even stop when the city/urban squares have insufficient water / health infrastructure to support their population. For now, I will focus on how of the province as a whole functions, omitting those features which are specific to cities. Also, the handle city is used loosely here. It means a place that is an administrative center, or has significantly larger population density than average, or a key trading location. In the modern era there will really be cities all over the place, but only those that are especially large will be treated as cities for game purposes.

One element I want to add at the square level that relates to cities, is a bonus for the amount of production that takes place in a square. In the transition during and after the industrial revolution, when supply chains in production became possible, concentrating production into a small area like a city could provide big benefits. This type of effect was generally only very small before the industrial revolution. To capture the importance of cities as production centers during this period, concentrations of productive capacity will get a bonus. For a really big city around 1900 my guess is the production bonus should be of order 25%. Anyone with a better guess is encouraged to state it ;-). I don't have the details yet, but this effect will push city growth in the way that happened in the real world. As the economy beomes even more developed, the bonus will gradually shift to being derived from the production in the whole province. Suggestions are welcome as to how to fit cities into the rest of the world model structure in Clash in this or other ways.

The main criterion for whether a square can be part of province or not, is the ease of transportation from that square to the central city of the province. Right now I'm working with the notion that any square that is less than one movement point from the capital city (or could be with road construction) qualifies for membership in the province.

Squares with better transportation connections (roads, canals, etc) to the administrative city of the province will get small bonuses to their economic productivity in all the sectors

The bonuses I have in mind is to average the road quality to the adminstrative city …

So a city with 100k people will require a much larger amount of infrastructure than the same number of people spread out among 20 squares

In my opinion this is rather vague. There will be cities, but they are really just either an administrative center (which BTW doesn't have to be a city), a square with many people in it, a key trading location (whatever that is) or a square designated by the player or AI as a city. A province have to have a capital, but it doesn't have to be a city. On the other hand a province have to have a city ('one or more cities'). Cities will grow faster 'in population and development', to a limit primarily caused by a combination high population density and lack or presence of certain infrastructure. Cities will have a bonus to production. (Or is it any concentrations of productive capacity that will get the bonus?). Cities play a role in determining how big a province can get, (BTW is 'the central city' the same as the capital (which doesn't have to be city)). Squares that have easy access to a nearby city square will have increased production.
If terms like '…omitting those features which are specific to cities', 'the handle city is used loosely here', 'I don't have the details yet', 'Suggestions are welcome as to how to fit cities into the rest..' does not imply a rather vague modelling so far, I don't know what it suggests.

What are cities? Squares with large population, squares designated by the player/AI to be cities or what? Are they infrastructure or special mapsquares? The production benefits seems to indicate that they are really some kind of infrastructure. There will usually be many people, but are they in the mapsquare or in the city-thing? If the player can designate a city, are there any prerequisites to doing so? Can he designate a city if only three people are present? Cities obviously have effects outside their mapsquare, which makes them rather unique - at least I don't think any other infrastructure object has this capability - but I might be wrong? This has serious implications during gameplay, particularly when dealing with conquest. What happens if a city acting as a capital is captured? What happens if another city is captured? Will the production benefits disappear, since the city is deprived of its surrounding land areas, or will there be sufficient production in the 100x100 km square to sustain the city?

All these questions seems to imply that the modeling of cities is by no means detailed. This is OK, but then you shouldn't bawk, when somebody comes with input that might provide an interesting approach (or even not so interesting?!), when you in fact asked for it yourself. At least you could discuss the issue. If the idea stinks, its OK with me, but stick to the point will'ya .

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 17:19

Beör:

You said "I had been worried by the lack of cities". Your English is so good, I had figured that was exactly what you meant! Of course now I notice you mention explicitly later in the same post that you read the econ model. If you want to discuss this, please copy your city post to the Econ thread, and I can delete the above and this current post... and respond there. You can find a link to the main econ discussion on the web page.

In truth I skimmed most of your post because it was mostly OT. If everyone goes OT the discussion degenerates very quickly. And it is later impossible to find anything. Perhaps you should start a new thread on your overall idea, because OO design for the whole game really doesn't belong here...
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited September 23, 2000).]

**Beör** · September 23, 2000, 17:46

This was originally a post scolding Mark for not reading my post, but it took me so long to write it without being unnecessarily abusive, that he beat me to it . Really annoying to have people apologize to you before you get a chance to point out to them that they have been unfair .

So this is a modified version:

No, Mark, I am not particularly interested in discussing cities - at least not at the moment (beware I will return ). So by all means delete the two posts above, I will refrain from copying them to the other thread. Feel free to do so if you think the points provided will contribute to the discussion. I will, however, not participate in that discussion for a while.

I would much rather hear your thougths on sites really being infrastructure. In a way the most basic infrastructure that actually provides the interface between people and the land. Am I completely of my rockers or does it actually make sense?

And what are your reactions to the fishing part, which you keep mentioning, but never really seem to have found a solution to.

In a way I understand F_Smiths reaction to military units being habitats: It is rather unconventional. And at least he considered the idea, and the implications.

Another really important point was that it would suddenly be possible to control nomadic civs without handling them as exceptions. They would act as any other civ.

And regarding OT. I admit this is not very related to tech. So far I have refrained from starting new threads, not wanting to intrude too much in your forum. But I guess I have made quite an impact anyway, so why not. I'm starting a new thread related to the basic OOA/D of the map, population, infrastructure and tech.

Is this the time to ask to be formally included in the team as 'COPITB' (Clash Official Pain In The Butt) ?

[This message has been edited by Beör (edited September 23, 2000).]

**Richard Bruns** · September 23, 2000, 18:34

Beör:

I think I had that title before. But I will gladly leave it to you. You are much more inventive and clever than I ever was, and will do a much better job of helping build the game. The Habitat proposal is brilliant.

**Beör** · September 23, 2000, 18:47

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 09-23-2000 06:34 PM
Beör:

...The Habitat proposal is brilliant.

Aaaah, finally someone who recognizes a genious. Blush, blush, blush .

**Mark_Everson** · September 23, 2000, 19:40

Beör, an official welcome to the team! But we're mostly pains in the butt here, so I don't think It'd be right to nominate you as the official one ...

Please take a look at the team page on the web site to see what info we usually post for members, and then put it in the "Web request" thread so Chris can post it.

I'll comment on your issues in your new thread.

Announcement

Technology System Version 5.3

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment