Give us feedback - answer our questions!

[GabrielGL]

Hmmm... well here's my thoughts.. I have not read thru all the above in detail, mostly because I have my own opinions.. I'll leave it to the dev folks to sort thru it all.

First let me say overall that, though I like to get into models and stuff, in order for a game to be playable, it must have, at least as an option, the ability to simplify it so a person can sit down and enjoy a game in somewhat less than an election cycle..

My responses and comments:

1. I dont' have strong feelings about the prerequisites.. I suppose a mix is good to the point it cannot be abused .. I like the idea of being able to get back "into the game" after a bad or unlucky start so "re-entrant" is nice.. but a good basic foundation(s) are needed I think generally.. nothing wrong with multi-path tho either..

2. I like eco effects as long as they are fairly clear and predictable.. to the degree that they require extensive management/resources, it probably will be a drag on the game.. maybe they can be switched on or off at the beginnning settings.. sometimes u just want to sit down and throw some smack.. :P

3. Ethnicities I think do not really have a positive effect on the game.. AC for example .. other than as curiosities many of the eth's r useless and u find that a HUGE majority of players just play the same races .. when it gets right down to it, the design of the races is simply not adequately integrated into the game.. NO RACE is one dimensional in real life, nor should they be in the game.. the eth's element becomes a hobble, not "ethical guides" which is as they were originally intended.. I guess this is the long way to say "NO"

4. Map shapes I don't feel strongly about.. flat is fine for scenerios otherwise design gets tough, but in play it is fine to have wraparounds of any type u like.. ppl will adapt..

5. I think assisted manual is fine tho I have no prob with "bunching" commands into groups.. most of the games I have seen that try more than just "helps" in this fashion tend to be very buggy so it must be a bear to program in a usable manner.

6. Classes are only an artificial "complexity factor".. if the game is adequately designed I feel plenty of complexity is available already.. (I have played the demos/models a good deal).. don't feel strongly about it tho; if u like it go for it.. hehe

7. I have no problem with ruler power.. in general I like the civ/AC mechanisms of having this vary with gov't model and having pro's and conn's of each element.

8. Nomadic existance, if really defensible in terms of being workable in the "time-frame", might be interesting.. it seems to be practical only in very primitive cases tho as it is unmanagable as a productive form of society..

9. I dont' know a lot about the effects of stability.. my bias is fairly stable with maybe long-term cycles only as long as there are workable methods of dealing with it. .. if there r no tools to deal with (manage/minimize) it is becomes only a frustration ..

10. all these kind of "randomizing elements" are only workable if u can turn em off as a part of the game settings.

11. Province variation on the surface is interesting as long as management does not deterate into tedium.. This is my main complaint on most of the games like Civ.. u get to a point where finishing the game is not fun, it is just tedious.. AC has addressed this in many ways over Civ.. more of the same might be nice, but even it can be very tedious..

12. No real opinion and inadequate consideration of this effect.. I'd need to see /experience a game where this was successful...

13. Not of interest.. there are opportunities for this in scenerious for ppl who really care..

14. I suppose c is the right answer, but really history is unimportant to me.. i have no prob abstracting my game play.. Some ppl seem to feel rather strongly about it tho so incorporation, at least in term of capability, means a broader market.

15. hmmm.. if the civ's are properly managed, "pirates" r only a variable.. make em " settings tunable" is fine

16. hmmm......... I think there is really no need for wonder-type things .. a well designed game should not need em IMHO. I have no objection to em tho if ppl want em.. what real purpose do they serve in game play.. really in RL they play no part..

17. Dynasties? .. nahhh.. do they serve a useful purpose? or are they just accomodations.. if u like em use em.. I'll try to figure it out.. I dont' see much of a role myself for em..

18. I suppose char is mostly an "add-on" as I see it.. similar to "races".. I really believe they r pretty silly.. however if the game has inadequate depth in terms of it's playability, they can be added to "spice it up"

19. Rivers shd be in-square.. on edges they become very artificial..

20. Ahhh... finally to the demos.. a hot item.. of your choices I select (in descending order of importance)

-a (savegame)

-l (graph/GUI) .. only in one area.. make the windows more manageble (hide/reveal) and they MUST BE SCROLLABLE up/down.. the current model is unworkable for any but a demo.. there are tasks that simply can't be done when u can't scroll a window

-e (economy)... u have obviously spent much time on
this.. and if u are going to use it, pls make the demo/tutorial be FUNCTIONAL in teaching the use.. I feel the DAWN scenerio is actually MISLEADING as to the goals /objectives to be done relative to winning..

-k (Mil AI)

-d (tech)

-j (trade/merch.. only if this is going to have usuable game content)

-i (diplomacy.. not really important in demo version unless u want to make it a tutorial)

-g (gov/riot)

-f (eth/cult/religion)

-h (tiles)

Both of these next are aside from game but seem to generate interest in a certain group of players and get started on supporting the game release
-b (map gen)
-c (scenerio gen)

21. Docs
c-online docs (which can always be dl'd) I think it is too dynamic to worry much about now.. and really if the demos are well done so as to be a tutorial, little doc's is needed. printed manuals are passe

[Mark_Everson]

Hey Gabriel, welcome to Clash and thanks for the comments and opinions!

Originally posted by GabrielGL
-e (economy)... u have obviously spent much time on
this.. and if u are going to use it, pls make the demo/tutorial be FUNCTIONAL in teaching the use.. I feel the DAWN scenerio is actually MISLEADING as to the goals /objectives to be done relative to winning..

Hmmm. . . Could you comment on this with more specifics about this in the D7 thread? I have no idea what you mean, and its obviously important to have the tutorial text reflect important stuff. Then again, the tutorial is meant more to be a how-to-play rather than a how-to-win manual.

[GabrielGL]

hmm .. i guess my comments are a bit out of place... the teaching of the tutorial on Dawn relate a good bit to econ, tho econ plays virtually no part in the scenerio as winning really means stop everything and make lots of warriors in hope of not getting ur butt kicked before u even get started... the tutorial on the other hand deals with lots of stuff about econ and skills dev and tactical improvements while the real deal is simple.. make lots of stuff and once u get thru killing the badies, THEN divert your resources to chariots in hopes of getting that done in time for the last hurrah of the badies.. I hardly think this "gives it away" .. hehe..

BTW I love the use of tutorials to learn the stuff.. u guys are off to a nice start..

I guess my point was that, for the econ model, which seems very impressive, it deserves its own scenerio with real econ objectives.. i am not really complaining tho it took me many times to win the Dawn thing i thought i was just bad at it.. i kept trying to get chariots somehow and educate ppl, etc instead of kicking ass which is really what it's about...

[while i'm whining here I'd like to put in a word for "insert mode" to be the default editor mode, i HATE overwrite.. i usually have obliterated about half my stuff before i look up at the screen to discover my faux paux... embarassing you know.... ]

oh, and i want to congrat all of you on your regular and sharp attn to ppl who comment and for regularly and promptly following up on it.. thx. . it's refreshing..

[gjc]

10 - c
Strategy game is NOT place for Randomness.

13 - 10

18 - i - a

21 - a

[orange]

Re: Give us feedback - answer our questions!

Let me start by saying I recently downloaded the demo and played the tutorial...and I was impressed. Very good stuff, especially by a group of people just working together on the net And not even 100% yet...can't wait to see the finished product

Now for the questions: I've bolded my choices for each.

Originally posted by axi
01) Technology: We currently have the option to make two tech systems. One of them is the standard Civ2/Starcraft prerequisite based system. The other is structured more like an RPG character building system, where the abilities of the civ develop continuously over time as the civ gains experience doing things. Which system do you think would be more fun? Look on the webpage (mirror) under Technology for a description of the new model.
a - Prerequisite based, as in civ.
b - RPG-like, as in the tech-model.
c - In-between.
d - Don't know/don't care.

02) Ecology: We are considering adding a detailed ecology model that changes the landscape in realistic ways, both naturally and in response to player and AI civ actions. Do you think this would be fun, or would you prefer a stable environment that you don't have to worry about?
a - Stable environment.
b - Few effects, as in civ.
c - Detailed ecology, as in the model.
d - Don't know/don't care.

03) Population: How much detail do you want in the population model? Do you like having population divided in ethnicities (see social model) or you'd prefer the civ2-like approach where people is all homogeneous? Do you also think it would add to the game if we modelled different ages/genders seperately?
a - Homogenous population, like in civ2.
b - Divide by ethnicities only.
c - Divide by ethnicities and age/gender.
d - Don't know/don't care.

04) Map: What kind of map do you prefer to play in? Would you like a cylinder, donut, cube structure, sphere, or some other structure? For those interested in the different types of models for maps look here.
a - Flat.
b - Cylinder.
c - Donut.
d - Cube structure.
e - Sphere.
f - Other.

05) Movement: How much detail do you want in the military movements? Do you like moving units around the squares yourself, or would you like the option of a large scale operational combat system like the one in Axis and Allies? For the main model, look at the website. For a couple of the alternative combat options ideas, look here and here.
a - Manually (with use of TaskForces and pathfinding orders).
b - Large scale operational combat system.

06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) How many classes would you like to see in a typical game and in what form?
a - Few default classes.
b - Many default classes.
c - Many custom classes created by a combination of default elements.
d - Many custom classes with unique attributes.
e - I don't care about social classes.

ii) What social classes (or elements of complex classes) you think must be there in the typical whole-history game?
a - Labor Class/Workers.
b - Nobility/Landed Aristocracy.
c - Capitalist Class.
d - Military Class.
e - Religious Class/Clergy.
f - Administrative Class/Bureaucrats.
g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.
h - Scientific class.
i - Other.

07) Ruler's power: 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?
a - Omnipotent ruler, as in civ.
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL.

08) Nomadic civs: Do you find interesting/fun to play a "nomadic civ"? That is, a moving civ with no cities that could eventually settle down. For example, playing the germans as a nomadic tribe for a while and then settle at some point in history.
a - Would be an interesting addition.
b - Would be unbalancing or useless.
c - Don't know/don't care.

09) Stability: How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?
a - Fairly stable, as in civ2.
b - Rising and falling, as in civ3.
c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL.
d - Don't know/don't care.

10) Disasters&Diseases: Do you think having disasters and diseases add fun to the game?
a - Definitely, go all the way.
b - Yes, but don't overdo it.
c - No, the randomness is spoiling the gameplay.

11) Provinces&Technology: Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?
a - Different tech levels, since it adds to realism.
b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated.

12) Internal conflict: Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?
a - I do not want internal conflicts in my civ.
b - I want conflicting groups that trigger events.
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI.

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

8

14) Fictional scenarios: How important you consider Clash being able to model non-historical scenarios such as fantasy games or sci-fi stuff?
a - Clash should be a strictly historical game.
b - Clash should be capable of supporting such scenarios, but this is less important than improving the normal gamaplay.
c - Clash should be made as flexible as possible.
d - Don't know/don't care.

15) Pirates: Do you want to see pirates and the like in the game? If so, how detailed?
a - Pirates in strategy games are nothing more than a nuisance.
b - Pirates should be implemented in an abstract manner.
c - Pirates should be implemented in detail as characters/units/civs.
d - Don't know/don't care.

16) Wonders & Achievements: What type of things would you like to see, especially in the use of achievements that don't have to do with buildings (f.e. crossing the world for the first time, cure for cancer, women's suffrage, etc).

Long Roads = Trade Increase
First to circumnavigate globe = increase in ship MP

17) Dynasties:

i) Do you like the idea of dynasties?
a - I would like them in my game.
b - I don't like the idea.

ii) 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 thateven if the dynasty collapsed and a new one took over, you'd be still in control, but with different political power level and political agenda)
a - Immortal ruler.
b - Ruler belongs to whatever dynasty currently rules the civ.
c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow.

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

No Dynasties or an 'elite family' (IE: Kennedys)

iv) 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?
a - For every character possible.
b - Only for specific types of jobs.
c - Only for the ones that have governmental jobs.
d - Only for the ruler.

18) Characters:

i) How much do you want the character model to be an essential part of the game? How much integrated you want it with the rest of the models? Do you see it as an add-on moreso or a integral part of the game or somewhere in between and if so, where?
a - Characters in a strategy game are nothing more than an add-on.
b - Characters should a integral part of Clash.
c - I would prefer something in-between.
d - Don't know/don't care.

ii) What kind of attributes should be used for characters?
a - Status
b - Alignment
c - Reputation
d - Intuition
e - Willpower
f - Charisma
g - Education
h - Other

Unsure

iii) 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.

Unsure

19) Rivers: Do you want the map to have rivers inside or at the edge of squares and why? Visit the relevant thread for details.
a - Inside squares.
b - On the edge of squares.

20) Demo: Which feature do you think should be our top priority for the next demo? Visit the relevant thread.
a - Savegames.
b - Map generator.
c - Map/scenario editor.
d - Technology.
e - Improved economics/infrastructure.
f - Culture/Ethnicities/Religion (Social model).
g - Government/Riots models.
h - Tile improvements, resources and settling.
i - Diplomacy.
j - Trade/merchants.
k - Military AI.
l - Graphics and GUI update.
m - Other.

21) Documentation: Which form of game documentation would be more useful to you?
a - Manual
b - In-game help.
c - Online documentation.
d - Something else.
e - I have a special gift for understanding obscure game models, so I don't need any help.

[Mark_Everson]

Re: Re: Give us feedback - answer our questions!

Originally posted by orange
Let me start by saying I recently downloaded the demo and played the tutorial...and I was impressed. Very good stuff, especially by a group of people just working together on the net And not even 100% yet...can't wait to see the finished product

Now for the questions: I've bolded my choices for each.

Thanks for the verbal support orange

Good idea on the way you just bolded the choices, made your selections a lot easier to browse. If anyone else wants to do that way, they're highly encouraged to do so!

Thanks,

Mark

[indiana7]

01) c. Hunting for XPs as a whole civ sounds nice, but science should still progress through pure research (and a mage should be able to become better through study - instead of going about hurling fireballs to orcs).
02) c. Anything to make the game as realistic as can be.
03) c. See above.
04) e.
05) a.
06i) c.
06ii) all.
07) b. (internal struggle should be important)
08) a. But nomadic civs should still advance in technology (maybe more easily in different fields) and money, and be able to produce units.
09) c. For the sake of realism.
10) a. But there should be ways to prevent (at least some of) them.
11) a. See above...
12) c.
13) 2.
14) b.
15) b. Pirates are supposed to be an economic nuisance at best, not civilization threatening powers.
16) There should be lots of Wonders available, and some of them civilization-specific, but each one should not necessarily be unique.
17i) a.
17ii) c. But overthrown dynasties should still be able to try to take control again (instead of losing the game). Maybe starting a revolution, or becoming barbarians for a while... or trying to win he next elections.
17iii) Dynasties in republics should try to win the elections, by spending money, holding their reputation high and making specific promises (breach of which should result in loss of reputation). Or they could have the option of forcefully taking over, changing the republic to a dictatorship.
17iv) b. Perhaps characters belonging to different dynasties would behave differently, even disobeying orders or taking initiative over various actions. The player should be able to chose various people for a job (as with leaders in MOO2), trying to assign the job to a competent character while still keeping most dynasties happy, lest they band up against him. (too complicated?)
18i) c.
18ii) all! (and more)
19) b. Rivers on the edge of squares allow for movement/combat modifiers and also for "destroy the bridge" tactics.
20) don't know
21) b. Like the civilopedia.

On a final note, I'd finally like to see some realism in the time scales. A legion should not have to walk for 80 years to go from Athens to Rome (after training for about 300 years in Athens to be produced - And what, are the legionaries immortal? Or do they breed along the way?). A ship should not be sailing for 200 years to get from Europe to America. And an airplane should not need 3 years for the same distance. I strongly recommend making the turns much much smaller (ranging from 6 months to 1 each). Also try making the map squares a little smaller for detail's sake.
Sorry for being so demanding...
Keep up the good work.

[yellowdaddy]

right. HAVE WE GOT ANY RESULT YEST? THIS SHOULD BE A POLL OR A SEVERAL POLLS.

1. i'll say b., i'd like to see it in action

[definately not a.]

2. c. but at what price for map sizes!

3. more than just c. languages, and civ evolution from an orignin "people" to one of a few "tribes" to a range of unique "nations"

i don't like the idea of starting with the Romans, and syticking with them all the way to the space age - it's totally unnatural... i want to be forced to choose which of the split-offs from the origina ethnic group to play with.

so when i start with the Italic people, i have to choose between these

Italics:Samnites [=Picenes?]
Umbrians
Sabines
Latins [=Faliscans,Volscians]
Oscans
Sicelians

and only if i choose the Latins do eventually get to pick the French, Italians or Spanish etc...

4. a. Civ 1 style overhead e-w cylinder, or if it's possible without too much of a cost, sphere!

perhaps your nation should beleive in a flat earth, until one of your ships circumnavigates the globe!

5. i like the ideas of recuiitment, dying off, and not having to have loads of military units all the time.
i like the sound of the second one, at the end of the day most people would like to think they win a battle by skill rather than just having bigger or mure of a generic unit.

i think some kind of combination looks likely.
you'd need a military training centre and bases/garrisons - it should depend on the period, and evolve if you are playing from the stone age up to the space age. without a training centre or organised base - it should be just mobs of militia!
some of the elemnts should be researchable, ancinet phalanxes didn't have the same strucure or knowledge of WW2 combined arms!
i don't like pure province fighting - that's like Europa Universalis.
i wouldn't mind seeing a battle plan designer! so you can plan your campaign before executing it.

6. c or d.

when you look at the world it tends to have the same kind of socila divisions - India has a few more, sao perhaps the difference is in the numbers. in the UK we talk about workingclass, missle class and unpperclass, in Japan they have 4 classes. in hindu-bhuddist societies status is fixed, in chinese society you can move up through the civil service. but uniqueness willl just be in names or the numbers of classes.

7. definately b. it should be variable - in a monarchy you are all powerful in a democracy, you often have to have decisions rqatified by parliament - this leads on the the pros and cons of your choce of politcal system. but i think you should be able to design your own variations on a theme.

8. yes nomadic civs, i like it.. there won't be that many any way, and the drawbacks will make them a novelty - the Tuaregs, the Romany, Amazonian indians, Mongols...

9. a mix of b and c. and sometimes splitting or evolving into new nations. (see 3.)

10. b.

11. a

12. c. definately (see 3.)

13. 9 ... i like it, i want to do the "what if.." type scenarios - something you can't do so well in other games.

14. b. i think it will be a sequal type issue.

15. i like the idea of c. it creates atmosphere, Taiwan used to be run as a pirate state, and the chinese recruitesd pirates for military purposes. have assasins and bountyhunters too - characters are great. Criminal organisation simulation would be mint.

16. yes, the invention of fire, crossing the world, stuff like that - the buildings are less interesting.

17. yes dynasties is ok (see 15) might be interesting if dynasties intermarried, political consequences for national policy.

definatley c. so you can build up a history of your nation.

in a non-dynastiucal system, they are overthrown or become a cosmetic feature as in Europe.

b. you only need the ruler and immediate family memebers who rule a province or something.

18. c.

a,b,c,e,f,g,h,

h being language, religion, ethnicity, sex, age,

a character is just a figurehead for a movemnt, but as a provincial, ethnic, religious, political, scientific, cultural or criminal figure they shoud affect the public of you nation in some way, to resist or be compliant with action os the government.

19. both - what about lagoons, and long thin lakes like loch ness! i'd like to see more variety in terrain - and i'm happy to draw it as well!

20. l or f.

21. b. like in civ 1.

[wombat42]

01)b, as it is in the tech model- cross-discipline requirements seem to be taken care of by unit requirements
02) Between b and c; it wouldn't be a big priority for me, and if used too excessively could get annoying, although it would add realism
03)c; things such as women's suffrage and age-based-voting would have a more direct effect on happiness; also, population dips after war for lack of male survivors would reflect reality

04)b is fine
05) a works for me
06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) b - many default classes; doesn't seem to me like they change much over time, only vary in size and power
ii)
a - Labor Class/Workers.
b - Nobility/Landed Aristocracy.
c - Capitalist Class.
e - Religious Class/Clergy.
g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.

07) Hmmm... interesting question. The answer depends on if you as the player are the ruler or the government. If government, then your decisions always reflect the will of the entire government; if not, you should be checked. Also, in Civ, the ruler is not all powerful - in Civ I, under a republic or democracy, the Senate can block a military action
08) a) I find barbarians in Civ really annoying, even though they realistically did exist for a time; On the other hand, it would be realistic...

09) c
10) b
11) b - what's to say you can't build a high-tech nuclear submarine plant in the Yukon Territory?
12) c
13) 9.5 - Some stuff that would have a negligible effect could be left out
14) a

15) c- but they should be beatable, as in you can eventually suppress them enough to not have to worry about them
16) Go ahead, knock yourself out; just keep in mind that wonders should have realistic effects - ie if you build the colossus, it's probably going to increase nationalism and therefore military morale and maybe trade, but probably won't help with food storage/production
17) Dynasties:

i) a

ii) b
iii) Could have a dynastic number, as in the French are in the 6th republic or whatever that number is
iv) a - a revolutionary would not have a gov't job, but could be considered a follower of a prospective dynasty
18) Characters:

i) c
ii) What kind of attributes should be used for characters?
a - Status
b - Alignment - factional, personality, or both
c - Reputation
d - Intuition
e - Willpower - for diplomatic AI purposes
f - Charisma
g - Education
h - Other

iii) Skills? Charisma above pretty much covers ability to lead... ability to govern isn't easily measurable, since a ruler could have really good advisers even if they're bad rulers, and advisers would be hard to make; military strategy for a general... not much else I can think of
19) a - ships should be able to move along the navigable rivers, like the Union ships on the Mississippi during the Civil War

20) Demo: Which feature do you think should be our top priority for the next demo? Visit the relevant thread.
It's all important, but a savegame feature would be very helpful; also, timetable for releases would be nice I check the website just about every day to see if the next version has been released. Take your time, though, programming such a cool game must be a hard task.

21) either in-game or online

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the feedback indiana7, yellowdaddy and wombat42!

I'll try to talk someone into collating all the results sometime soon.

Originally posted by wombat42
...timetable for releases would be nice I check the website just about every day to see if the next version has been released. Take your time, though, programming such a cool game must be a hard task.

Yeah, its very time-consuming, especially since RL frequently eats the teams' respective programming times. I frankly don't know when the next release is coming. Everyone, myself especially, seems to have had little time to work for the last month or so. We'll get back into gear individually, and as a team, as soon as practical.

That's why we generally don't have anything but crude goals for the releases. Without time to code and design scenarios etc. that we can count on, its very hard to have a good idea when the next version will be here. . .

That's the hazard of an all-volunteer part-time effort. Then again because its that way we can try out new and innovative approaches to the genre that the commercial houses mostly don't seem willing to try because of the risk.

[yellowdaddy]

g

hear hear!

[jbl18]

01)
b - RPG-like, as in the tech-model.

02) Ecology: a - Stable environment.
b - Few effects, as in civ.

03) Population:
b - Divide by ethnicities only.

04) Map: What kind of map do you prefer to play in? Would you like a cylinder, donut, cube structure, sphere, or some other structure? For those interested in the different types of models for maps look here.
a - Flat.
b - Cylinder.
c - Donut.
d - Cube structure.
e - Sphere.
f - Other.

06) Social classes: Clash population will be divided in social classes (the aristocracy, the clergy, etc).

i) How many classes would you like to see in a typical game and in what form?
c - Many custom classes created by a combination of default elements.
d - Many custom classes with unique attributes.

ii) g - Servant class/Serfs/Slaves.

07)
b - Restricted ruler power, as in RL.

08) Nomadic civs: a - Would be an interesting addition.

09) Stability: How internally stable you think empires should be along the thousands of years of play?
c - Continuously tormented by internal struggles, as in RL.

10) Disasters&Diseases:
a - Definitely, go all the way.

11) Provinces&Technology: Do you find interesting/fun if the available techs aren't the same in each of your civ's provinces?
b - Unique tech level, else it would be too complicated.

12) Internal conflict: Do you like having to deal with internal conflicts such as struggles between religions, between ethnicities, between social classes?
c - I want conflicting groups that are controlled by an AI.

13) Historical accuracy: 10.

14)
c - Clash should be made as flexible as possible.

15) Pirates:
b - Pirates should be implemented in an abstract manner.

16) Wonders & Achievements: Effects of Wonders should be achievable by all but give the first an initial advantage.

17) Dynasties:

i) a - I would like them in my game.

ii).
c - Ruler belongs to specific dynasty and risks overthrow.

iii) If you want dynasties, how would you like things to be handled in rebublics, democracies or other non-dynastical countries, esp. for ruling dynasties ?
There is always a ruling party and opposition parties. Opposition parties will do things as citizens want until the ruling party returns or joins, limits power for the duration.


iv)
b - Only for specific types of jobs.

18) Characters:

i)
c - I would prefer something in-between.

ii) d - Intuition
e - Willpower
f - Charisma

iii) Historical Figures that can be recruited both god and bad. Stalin makes a decent Dictator but a horrible Science Advisor. Einstein allows your science to flourish, but a terrible Manager of anything else. The heads of department should affect that departments efficiency.

19) Rivers: Why not both a - Inside squares- major river
b - On the edge of squares- minor river

20) Demo: in order
l - Graphics and GUI update.
a - Savegames.
c - Map/scenario editor.
b - Map generator.
h - Tile improvements, resources and settling.
g - Government/Riots models.
f - Culture/Ethnicities/Religion (Social model).
i - Diplomacy.
d - Technology.
e - Improved economics/infrastructure.
j - Trade/merchants.
k - Military AI.

21) Documentation:
b - In-game help.

[Sean]

01) B

02) A

03) A (but it isn't important to me).

04) F. (Don't care).

05) A (Don't fully appreciate the other options - sorry)

06) I) D
II) Generally, all good. But most classes have not existed through out. eg the capatilist is a recent invention. Mabe trading class instead? Problems with them all...so keep all I say.

07) A (Again I good idea but...I don't like the computer interfering, if you get my drift.)

08) C

09) A (I don't mind really - just anything other than the rampant corruption of civ 111)

10) C (Generally I hate diasters. maybe random good events as well?)

11) A (but I see the merit of the idea).

12) A

13) 8

14) D

15) D

16) So many options...I like the first to circumnavigate the world and bonus for achievments like that. But as to specifics and particular wonders I'll leave it up to others.

17) i) B (But it could add to the texture of the game. probably should be considered along side the earlier ruler control question.)

18) C

19) No opinion.

20) D

21) A


I hope that is of some help.
Sean.

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks for the feedback on the way we should go Sean! BTW I'm a big fan of P.J. O'Rourke, although the quote in your sig overstates it just a bit

[Sean]

Its hyperpole of course. Exageration to make a point. While government is essential to certain things (Police, defence etc), most things it touchs turn to custard.

Sean.