Planning for D6

[Gary Thomas]

On Mark's suggestion, this is a thread to discuss plans for D6.

Plans for D6.

These are the immediate things I intend to do for D6, more or less in order:

1. Make the map larger and scrollable.

2. Provide for a world map.

3. Get rid of Xerces (the XML scanner). I like Laurent's XML stuff and will use that as the basis, but recode the very small part of Xerces that we need.

4. Make all the currently hard coded data into XML files.

5. Build the tech stuff (written and working, though the data isn't yet available) in.

6. Work on the government and social stuff.

7. Make a consistent list of available commands. Make the commands available through key strokes.

8. And, as always, everything else I have forgotten.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

I think we should take on Only what we think we can do in 2 months or so for the demo. If our wish list is too big, IMO we need to trim it down. I think its crucial for us to get as much feedback as quickly as possible on what works and what doesn't since we are a bunch of amateur game designers doing a Very aggressive project. Some of our approaches are Bound to be impractical or just not fun. We need to check game design aspects asap to see if they pass the test. That said if we pick things that we think can be done in 2 and they take 4 instead, that's life, and we shouldn't put out something that doesn't work just to meet an arbitrary deadline. What does everyone think?

That said, I think I agree with everything in your approach except 2, and will add some points myself.

2. is I think premature unless you mean a fragment of a world map. There is IMO not enough in the game yet to make a world map a value-added component. I feel it would take time from more critical things.

As I understand it, most of your work for 5 would involve interfaces for the player to get info and give orders to the tech system, since the core part is done. This of course depends on Richard doing the entry and early testing for system stability etc. I will contact him if he doesn't show up here soon. I would like to add 5b: use of the tech system in the econ and military models as appropriate. Implementation: (Mark/Gary) and (Laurent/Gary) respectively on 5b.

Now my additions:

8. Begin the AI work in earnest by designing the first set of rules for AI. Also use these for player delegating command to AI if they choose. (We would leave for D7 the AI deciding the best among a set of rule-derived approachs to use through simulation. See AI page of Clash web page if interested in this topic.) (Mark mostly design Gary mostly coding per our conversation)

9. Include the first Diplomacy system (Sancio)

10. Handle ships in the military model for naval battles and naval transport (Laurent)

11. Put in special goods and merchants into econ system (Mark)

I'm sure I've left out a few things, but I think this hits most of the big ones. What does everyone think?

[Gary Thomas]

I think we should take on Only what we think we can do in 2 months or so for the demo. If our wish list is too big, IMO we need to trim it down. I think its crucial for us to get as much feedback as quickly as possible on what works and what doesn't since we are a bunch of amateur game designers doing a Very aggressive project. Some of our approaches are Bound to be impractical or just not fun. We need to check game design aspects asap to see if they pass the test. That said if we pick things that we think can be done in 2 and they take 4 instead, that's life, and we shouldn't put out something that doesn't work just to meet an arbitrary deadline. What does everyone think?

I think that each addition should be got working, and the game released at that point. For example, with a scrollable map, we would have release D5.1, probably about a week after D5, and so forth.

2. is I think premature unless you mean a fragment of a world map. There is IMO not enough in the game yet to make a world map a value-added component. I feel it would take time from more critical things.

All I meant was a small version of the full map so you could click on it and have the main map switch to that area. Not a big job.

As I understand it, most of your work for 5 would involve interfaces for the player to get info and give orders to the tech system, since the core part is done. This of course depends on Richard doing the entry and early testing for system stability etc. I will contact him if he doesn't show up here soon. I would like to add 5b: use of the tech system in the econ and military models as appropriate. Implementation: (Mark/Gary) and (Laurent/Gary) respectively on 5b.

That is reasonable, but again doesn't look like a lot of work.

I agree with all your additions except that I would promote 11 (ships) to a higher level, at least for transport.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

I agree your 5.1 etc. release schedule will be even better than what I was pushing for. Lets try it that way, and see how it works out!

Your map idea is fine by me. BTW, I didn't imply the numbers to be priority- or implementation-order in my list.

[Gary Thomas]

Glad you like the idea, Mark. I think it will really add impetus to the project.

This is a revised todo list for D6, incorporating Mark's additions. I have taken out the numbers, but ordered by victims (sorry - dedicated workers). I also added important items (roads and rivers).

• Make the map larger and scrollable. (Gary)
• Provide for a world map. (Gary)
• Get rid of Xerces (the XML scanner). I like Laurent's XML stuff and will use that as the basis, but recode the very small part of Xerces that we need. (Gary)
• Make all the currently hard coded data into XML files. (Gary)
• Add roads. (Gary)
• Add rivers. (Gary)
• Make a consistent list of available commands. Make the commands available through key strokes. (Gary)
• Work on the government and social stuff. (Gary)
• Build the tech stuff (written and working, though the data isn't yet available) in. (Gary and Richard)
• Handle ships in the military model for naval battles and naval transport (Laurent)
• Begin the AI work in earnest by designing the first set of rules for AI. Also use these for player delegating command to AI if they choose. (We would leave for D7 the AI deciding the best among a set of rule-derived approachs to use through simulation. See AI page of Clash web page if interested in this topic.) (Mark mostly design Gary mostly coding per our conversation)
• Put in special goods and merchants into econ system (Mark)
• Include the first Diplomacy system (Sancio)

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

The scrollable (and hence potentially as large as you like) map has been implemented for D5, so is not now part of D6 (or even D5.1).

I propose to give immediate priority to fixing the XML stuff. This might make it into D5.

Cheers

[LDiCesare]

In addition to naval transport and fight
(btw transport isalready coded, but only has test cases), I will try to get fortifications/terrain and an engineer element in the mil model, so that defenders may have more defense bonus.

[Mark_Everson]

Both of you: Sounds good to me

[Mark_Everson]

More for the list...

(fairly soon in the D6 plan for these)

Refactor government/territory command and control system as discussed in C&C thread (Gary)

Really populate the map, rather than just have a few cities. This will allow for testing how the civ/province/square hierarchy works, in econ and other models. What are now cities will become the capital cities of provinces. (Gary / Mark)

[LDiCesare]

Would it be possible to add merchants/supply lines for armies soon? I don't know how much econ coding would be required. I think if it doesn't make it for D6, it would be good to start it as soon as possible afterwards, since it would add a lot to the game.

[Mark_Everson]

Supply lines may be pushing it for D6 But here are the things we can do for D6 to make the military more reasonable:
1. Army build removes population (trivial, just haven't done it yet)
2. Supplies come from Somewhere or the army will suffer the concequences. Probably the home square can support. (again fairly easy)

I'll try to do both these for the first release following D5, 5.1 or whatever. These two will reduce the infinite military buildup that's possible now, and also mean that when you take all the enemies' territory he won't be able to use conventional forces as effectively. I may still be able to do the whole supply thing for D6, but don't want to promise yet. But I will push it, because it is something that is Sorely missing in 4x games, and I want to show playtesters We've done it!

Another topic:

In D4 (old code) I had Support orders, simulating the fact that nearby troops, if given enough forewarning, can help a square/army coming under attack. I'd like to get that back in soon. These also help in covering a border, and could be assigned to automatically inderdict enemy supply lines when we get those going.

[edit] Cycling through TFs to move them would be good also. Right now its easy to fire a unit off to a staging point, and then forget about them. A way to cycle through all units without specific orders (move, garrison, whatever) would be useful to include soon.

[edit] Being able to automatically send new units to a rally point would be useful. If others agree this is a good thing to do this soon, we can work out a spec.

[Gary Thomas]

From me:

I propose to give immediate priority to fixing the XML stuff. This might make it into D5.

The deployment turned out to be blissfully easy, thanks to InstallAnywhere. So changing the download size is no longer an issue. However there are some other advantages to a tailored xml class, so I will continue (slowly) with this. It definitely is not now part of D5.

From Mark

Cycling through TFs to move them would be good also. Right now its easy to fire a unit off to a staging point, and then forget about them. A way to cycle through all units without specific orders (move, garrison, whatever) would be useful to include soon.

Being able to automatically send new units to a rally point would be useful. If others agree this is a good thing to do this soon, we can work out a spec.

I will handle these.

The second one raises a point which I briefly touched on in Command and Control. It is desirable that orders should be given in a consistent format. I think that this should be implemented by giving an order to an Economy object.

Cheers

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Gary, Thanks for taking those new items on. I'm with you that replacing Xerces is a fairly low priority.

"It is desirable that orders should be given in a consistent format."
Agree completely

"I think that this should be implemented by giving an order to an Economy object."
Disagree completely . Orders for where units/TFs go is a Military function. I don't understand at all how you think it could be econ. Care to elaborate?

PS I had fun playing the latest version of D5! Its come far enough along its starting to act like a game

[Gary Thomas]

"I think that this should be implemented by giving an order to an Economy object."
Disagree completely . Orders for where units/TFs go is a Military function. I don't understand at all how you think it could be econ. Care to elaborate?

Something has to issue the order to the unit. The only thing that knows when a unit is born is the Economy that produces it. What I had in mind is, if you like, an order to the Economy to give an order to the unit.

It is worth noting that, if we implement the command concept, each new unit will need to be assigned to a command. Under that system, the command could give the initial movement order. This could have the interesting possibility that different types of unit could be sent to different places.

Cheers

[Gary Thomas]

Cycling through TFs to move them would be good also. Right now its easy to fire a unit off to a staging point, and then forget about them. A way to cycle through all units without specific orders (move, garrison, whatever) would be useful to include soon.

Done.

Sorry about that.

Cheers.