The Clash Forum Guestbook

[Beör]

It's no big thing with a Danish keyboard.

Y'all can use Beor, for simplicity. I wont mind
[This message has been edited by Beör (edited October 01, 2000).]

[VetLegion]

quote: A) Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc). How many would you like to see in a typical game?

3 to 5, probably 3.

quote: B) What social classes you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?

I am still thinking about this, sorry I tend to think classes should be labour-centered but this kind of confuses me since one can be Factory Worker and French... Then again if you have both, why not put division by sex or short term interests in too... For reason of simplicity labour division only seems best to me.

quote: C) Being the ruler of your civ, do you want to have always a tight control of the civ's govt decisions or would you like to experience less control in regimes where the ruler isn't really all powerful in real life?

In civ2 level of control ruler has is simulated by corruption level, productivity and happiness. It will have to be represented some way.

quote: D) Do you find interesting/fun to play a "nomadic civ"?

I dont really like that, maybe put an option.

quote: E) How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?

Pretty much stable. If it is possible to split your empire you should see it coming. For example if you raise taxes too much or something... you had it coming I would avoid Sudden Random Elements.

quote: F) Do you think having disasters and deseases add fun to the game?

Depends. Civ1 way (fully random) no. But if you model tectonic plates or tropical areas, why not have an occassional earthquake or tornado?

quote: G) Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?

Dont follow your tech model sorry

quote: H) Do you like having population divided in ethnicities or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous?

divide, divide and divide! I hope you do it good so we can copy it (OC3)

quote: I) Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?

Oh yes. If it gets too much detailed, make a separate game about it, just for me please

quote: J) How much do you care about historical accuracy in a 0-10 scale? 0=doesn't care.

0.

quote: K) How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?

This is no problem if everything is well programmed I think, just some graphics here and there and maybe rules file, no?

quote: L) Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?

not much detailed, like disasters maybe. Barbarians on the other hand should be a civ, as detailed as they get.

Edit: quotes
[This message has been edited by VetLegion (edited October 01, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by VetLegion (edited October 01, 2000).]

[Westergaard]

Lurkers? That's me!

And here's my answers...

A) I just love the current government model as described on the your website: Ruler, upper class, lower class, religious, military and a public administration class.

B) One addition, however, could be the educated elite - an "acedemic class". They would rarely have a lot of government power (scientist rarely do), but could have a significant impact on research rates.

I'm not sure how big influence scientists have had historically.

C) Yes. I'd like to see less control in regimes "where the rulser isn't really all powerful in real life". Realism is good. More realism is very good.

D) Yes I think the nomadic civilization is a very interesting aspect of the game. While I'm not sure how much I'd be playing one, it would be cool to fend of the barbarian hordes from my fields.

Besides that, the conflict between farmers and nomads is a very important aspect of very ancient cultures, and it is a must to implement it.

E) I agree with VetLegion that I don't want a sudden splitting of my proud empire due to some random event. If i could see it coming, however, it would be a whole different case. I think it is very important to show the rise and fall of empires. Very few empires in history have managed to stay intact more than a handfull of centuries. Correspondingly it should be almost impossiple for a player to avoid parts of the empire to break of. The worst enemy shouldn't always be external.

F) Yes. But only if they're based on a model (like the FE disease model - which is excellent) and not some random event generator.

G) No, I don't like that idea. Sounds way too complicated, in exchange for little realism gain. Yes far away provinces might not always have been very advanced, but I think that's nicely implemented through the development of every square. Technologilly challenged provinces would simple be less developed.

E) Yes ethnicity is a good idea.

I) Yes. As stated before I don't think the worst enemy should always be external. I'd be really cool to hear from the advisors that the [ideology 1] is now rallying troops around the lands, intended on marching against the capital city.

J) Accuracy: 0. Realism: 10. It's not important that there IS a period of imperialism in a game. But if the world situation in a game evolves into a period of imperialism, then it's VERY important that the imperialistic period is implemented realistically (colony problems, protectionistic markets, declarations of independece, etc.)

The most important aspect of the game is the "what if?" question. Players should be allowed to explore. Whithin the limits of what is possible.

K) Pretty important. But speaking og Sci-fi, i'd be tremendeosly disapointed if Clash didn't go just a little into the future. I think it's very cool to see what a civilization might become. And no, I don't want settling of other planets / solarsystems - but a few satellite improvements could be extremely cool (solar power satellites as an important future power source FE. Look at The Space Settlement FAQ. Or ABM satellites. Maybe even cities in space - the so called O'neill cylinders - check the link)

L) Pirates is OK. Don't care much about pirates.

[roquijad]

Thank you, VetLegion and Westergaard, for giving us your opinions. Note Richard made a few questions too (second post in this thread). If you have the time, please give us input on those topics too.

[Westergaard]

Oh I didn't see the first questions...

1) I don't which of these models I prefer. In real world you don't just pour lightbulbs into an idea, and then pop! you have a technology. Especially in ancient times, new technologies were often discovered by chance, and there wasn't any real "science". But I do realize that for the gameplay this is a poor solution. Must admit that I haven't read the RPG solution. - So really I don't know. The less control the player has - the better.

2) I have read the ecology model on your homepage, and think it is excellent. Particularly in the end-game I would like to see some real ecological disasters when my industries pollute the world. Civ's global warming was too puny and SMAC's mindworms doesn't fit in a civilization game. Global warming etc should cause millions of deaths around the world and empires should crumble and dissipate as a result.

3) Don't know. If you find relevant use for different ages elsewhere it's a fine idea. Otherwise it should be left out. Don't build the model for its own sake.

4) A sphere would of course be the ultimate solution, but I realize that this is very hard to program. If a sphere is impossible, I'd be fully content with the good old civ I/II cylinder. (And what's that about a donut!?!?)

5) I'm not familiar to the Axis and Allies combat system, but I really hate to move my own units around. Ideally I would just tell my military advisor to exterminate civ X and then sit back and watch, perhaps changing parameters such as the number of troops available for combat, their aggressiveness level, etc. Of course the movement of troops should be shown somehow, but I really hate the term “unit”. I’d much rather like to see X soldiers and Y tanks in the Z region. Because of the units we never saw any trench warfare FE, but instead there was just a bunch of units attacking one city, moving on to the next when victorious. Wars fought over extensive frontiers should be much more common. Don’t know how to implement it though - Perhaps an attack bonus for attacking from behind or from either side.

I just read the two models hyperlinked. I’m glad you don’t like units either. Liked the first best however. A note to the second is that it was a huge disadvantage to let advisor do the combat in “lords of the realm”. Don’t let this happen in Clash.

**********

I think it’s great that you guys ask lurkers, like me, once in a while too. I’m happy if I can be of any assistance to this project, which I BTW think is an excellent idea. Be sure to comment answers – a lot of lurkers could be scared off when thinking no one listened.

Good luck with the project.

[Richard Bruns]

Thanks for posting, everyone. I'm glad we are getting responses. I'll make a few comments on the responses to my questions:

1) Technology

It seems that the consensus so far favors the RPG-like "civ experience" system. Westergaard, I think that it will give what you want. In ancient times, the player does not control technology directly. Tech advance comes based on the economic and social activity in the civ. It isn't random for fairness reasons, but it also isn't under the direct control of the player. The best way to advance tech is to manage your civ well.

2) Ecology

There seem to be different opinions on this, both among lurkers and team members. But it seems that we would please most people if the model gives accurate results and requires little micromanagement. We'll keep this in mind. I think that a good solution is to make a model that accurately simulates big disasters but requires no input on a turn by turn basis.

The problem with this is that players might find a way to avoid those disasters by micromanagement and thus give themselves an advantage. This could mean that players would feel that they have to micromanage things. But if we take away that ability to micromanage and influence the system, then the disasters would be essentially random and uncontrollable.

So we have to find a way to avoid requiring micromanagement while giving players the ability to influence and interact with the system.

3) Population

Again, mixed opinions. It seems that we'll just have to code both options and playtest. Note that the detailed population model is meant to be a scenario design tool.

4) Map Structure

It seems that the consensus is a basic cylander map for the main game. The other options are apparently a bit confusing.

5) Military System

There is suppport for the province based option, but the units movement is also popular. It seems that we'll have to make a military system that is flexible enough to handle both if them.

Again, thanks for the feedback.

[Lord God Jinnai]

One thing first:
The nomadic people aren't necassarily 'barbarians' and could be very peaceful.

I do have a few questions:

1a. For the Wonders & Achievements what type of things would you like to see, espically in the use of achievements that don't have things to do with buildings such as crossing the world for the first time.

1b. Also do plan to play a more abstract or more historical model?

2a. Do you like the idea of dynasties?

2b. If so, do you want the player to have a historical dynasty for himself instead of necessarily being this immortal being as in Civ I/II? (note even if the dynasty collapsed and a new one took over, you'd be in control, but with differnt power political power level and structure maybe)

2c. If you want dynasties, how would you like things to be handled in rebublics, democracies or other non-dynastical countries, esp. for ruling dynasties?

2d. Again if you like dynasties, do you want them for every character possible? Only ones that have governmental jobs? Only specific types of jobs? Or something else?

3a. How much do you want the character model to be apart of the model? I'm really asking how integrated you want it with the rest of the game. Do you see it as an add-on moreso or a intergral part of the game or sometwhere inbetween and if so, where?

3b. Finally, what characteristic should be used for characters? (Sorry, i'll take up some space listing what is currently used right now. Tell me if you like it and if not what you would change/delete/add:

Physical Traits Social Traits
--------------------- -----------------
Status Intuition
Alignment Willpower
Reputation Charisma
Education

Status - Represents the social level a character is at. 1 is usually slave or serf or in modern times, a bum. 10 is a journeyman craftsperson or in modern times, a factory worker. 20 is the elite aristocracy or extremely influential people. In modern times these would be rulers of countries, superstars, CEOs of huge corporations like Microsoft. This also represents their relative wealth or potential wealth for the very near future. As the character is played, this may go up or down somewhat.

Alignment - This represents the way the character's actions are viewed by society in general as a whole. This doesn't say a character is good or bad, only the way other people in general see him/her as. This range goes from -10 though 10. -1, 0 and 1 are considered neutral and all characters start out with one of those stats. Beyond that is when people start to take notice of their actions. Also when dealing with characters with very high/low alignments they will act differently and will not do certain jobs. Once a character is no longer considered neutral, they cannot get out of that alignment bracket, though they can go up and down within it.

Reputation - This is the most volatile of all the Traits. All characters who don't come from a dynasty start off with a reputation of 1. Those that come from dynasty's start off 1 lower than their parent's reputation. All Radicals (explained later) will have a minimum of 10. This trait measures how well a character is know, not liked. The higher the reputation, the more he's known and the more able u are to hire him if he's outside your civ. However, higher reputations also require more lucrative offers (explained below). Reputation is increased and decreased in many ways, namely as time passes (reputation tends toward shifting 7 if no other modifiers are out there. Other things that can raise it; when the character is hired, were successful at a job, been promoted, very few in that profession. Some that could lower; fired from a office, overthrown, unsuccessful. This is by far incomplete and probably highly inaccurate, but I hope you get the idea.

Intuition - This represents a character's instincts, common sense, perception and daily living knowledge. Those with high intuitions usually are able to think fast (although not necessarily correctly). Low intuition doesn't mean that someone's dumb, it means they might be inexperienced or somewhat mentally imbalanced. Intuition like education will probably not change that much, but if so will only go up and by not more than 2.

Willpower - This is the drive for success of a person, there ability to resist charismatic leaders (and resist being hired) and the ability to be efficient. Those with high willpower will be risk takers, adventurous or dominant in political field. Strong will powered people are harder to hire, but are also good if you manage to get one. All radicals will have a minimum of 10 for their willpower.

Charisma - This is a character's ability to sway a person, group or populace through his speaking and actions. This character is naturally gifted (or handicapped) in this area and will usually make good in politics or religion. Super charismatic people are known to cause turmoil throughout history.

Education - This is basically book knowledge and the use of it. Those of less than 5 are
considered illiterate while those of 17+ are usually considered geniuses. This stat will probably not change, but if so, will only go up and not by more than 2.

3c. What type of skills should characters have considering the type of models? If you have ideas and post them please, also explain a little about what type of characters would use those skills.
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited October 04, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lord God Jinnai (edited October 04, 2000).]

[Westergaard]

One thing first:
While nomads might not be barbarians, they would certainly seem so the farmers. Hence the statement "fend of the barbarian hordes from my fields."

Edit: Accidentally hit submit button too early


Knowing that answering too much, might strip me of my "lurker" status, I simple can't resist. It's such a cool project. Still hope that other lurkers join in though.

But in response to the dynasties question, I must admit that I wouldn't like that option very much. Neither characters nor dynasties. But by all means make it either optional or as you general principle suggests: make it a small, non integral part of the game, which players can "dive" further into if they wish to.

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

Having now answered tons of questions from you, I'd like to ask one of my own:

A) How far into the future will the game continue?

One thing that always bothered me about civilization I/II was that the modern age had such an "end of the world" feel to it. No wonder - it was the "end of the world" or at least the end of the game. I think that's sad, because the real world currently has no end of the world feel to it.

So as you probably can sense, I'm all pro-future. Bought SMAC purely for that reason, and is seriously considering to get a hold of CtP - for the space race alone.

Are you pro-future?

[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited October 05, 2000).]

[Richard Bruns]

I definitely want to go at least into the near future. The problem is that we have to try to make predictions about what could happen. I think I would be able to project the tech tree to about 2050 based on my research and knowledge of the fields being studied.

After that, it becomes almost impossible to tell what could happen. We either have to put in crazy sci-fi stuff or make it seem like nothing has really changed. So the default game will probably end about 2050, but there will be an option to go further with the sci-fi stuff.

[Westergaard]

I asked this question because I'm very interested in space exploration, in particular it's applications back on Earth - micro-g research and solar power satellites for example.

One of the books that spurred this interest, is a study by Gerard K. O'Neill (1927-1992), who was a physicist with Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Study. It’s called ”The High Frontier” and basically describes huge solar power satellites as a solution to the world’s energy problems. Solar power satellites had previously been ruled out since they could never hope to compete with other energy sources in terms of cost/efficiency. O’Neill devised a pretty straightforward method of building these solar power satellites – Build them in space, with space materials. This of course required quite a workforce, requiring accommodation and life support, everything tremendously costly. But O’Neill held that once the initial workplace – “island one” – was in place, the process would inevitably speed up due to the already gained beachhead and the construction of solar power satellites would soon have paid all the initial costs. You can read an introduction to the approach in The Space Settlement FAQ

While I read about your project it strikes me that these studies would be a perfect basis for a possible Clash end-game. Not only has it got realism – it’s based on real studies. It could also be implemented without forcing the focus of the game away from Earth. I think that this is very important: a “crazy sci-fi” solution shouldn’t be implemented just for its own sake. For example: Don’t go terraform Mars or whatever – keep the focus on civilizations and their problems on Earth, the main theme of Clash.

But then again – why not stay on Earth entirely?

I think that this would overlook some of the questions of the modern world. One of the biggest problems of modern civilization is energy. Currently more energy equals more pollution. More pollution equals tons of ecological disasters from the ecology model. But since more growth equals more energy, it’s bound to go wrong sometime? This idea provides the player with a choice: Should the player reduce pollution, and consequently reduce growth, or should he invest a sum of money to open up a new frontier thereby providing deliverance to the “old” world? “The High Frontier”

I know that this might cross the 2050 limit, but on the other hand it doesn’t break it by introducing any “crazy sci-fi” stuff. At least I don’t think so. It’s all pretty straightforward technology – some even say it could be done today. I don’t say so, but in the not-so-far-future maybe?

So what do you say? I would definitely be willing to give a try at making a model that could fit in the current system, without being especially unrealistic.

[Westergaard]

Sorry for being off-topic

[Richard Bruns]

That sounds like a really good endgame, Westergaard. Unlike the Alpha Centauri race, it actually means something for your people. We were lacking an endgame, and I think you might have just provided it. Thanks!

And I think that was on topic. This thread is meant to get ideas and input from lurkers.

[alms66]

Westergaard,

"F) Yes. But only if they're based on a model (like the FE disease model - which is excellent) and not some random event generator."

Thanks for the plug to the disease model ... I'm happy to see that someone has noticed it!

Can you belive I actually took the time to read 7 books on the subject before writing it? I must have been nuts back then.

[Lord God Jinnai]

Well as far as technology beyond 2050 goes, i want it to be based AMAP on likely technological growth and discoveries. This said, what was thought sci-fi 50 years ago is in many cases real science or very close to that so I think some artistic license *could* be allowed here for really stretching it in the extreme future for those who don't want an endgame or atleast not as soon.

I mean 50 years ago Kirk used his 'communicator' to talk to scotty on those away missions and we now use digital phones based very similar supposive technology. And we have TVs you can hang on your wall, the capasity to store all of shakespears works on a disc, have lawnmovers that mow your lawn for you, and on....50 years ago people wouldn't have thought this stuff ness. possible today. No one ever envisioned a world-wide-computer network and computers with more capabilites that could fit on a desk or even your lap!

So with that said, I will keep things within bounds of *probable* scientific advances, but allowing for less likely ones and ones that might not fit with our definition of the theories right now (after all 50 years ago saying that an electron took up space and had no mass and could pass through protons and neutrons would've caused you to laughed at).

[Westergaard]

If it’s OK with the team I could try to explain the idea a little more, and maybe how to implement it in the game too. Create a sketchy model perhaps. Does this in any way sound interesting, or is the main focus of Clash entirely historical?
[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited October 07, 2000).]