johny smith's ideas/suggestions

[Thunderbrd]

The idea I am thinking is a parallel development of tools in different regions. I am not thinking a normal spearman is a more advanced stage to obsidian spearmen. I am thinking Maya, Olmec, and Aztecs have obsidian spearman while Assyrians, Sumerians, Babylonians have a different spearman that evolved on Middle East technology.

The Equipment system still in development will highlight this nicely. Under a Combat Mod approach, we don't have units dedicated to particular qualities of weapons but rather the unit upgrades represent improvements in strategies and weapon types. But the quality of those weapons, such as copper or obsidian or steel or even the craftsmanship would be dependent on other factors that would influence what equipments are available.

 

[Hydromancerx]

I am ok with "whatifs", but I mean if they become more common than the norm the interest begins to fade. I could make a "whatif" Star Wars characters occurred in a comical Stone Age. So therefore why couldn't Darth Vader not use an obsidian light saber to slay dinosaurs? The lack of rarity of something not being a "whatif" drowns out the significance of a "whatif".

No no. This is within the limits of the game rules. There would not be Darth vader and dinosaurs because dinosaurs already died out and Darth Vader is off on some far off planet. Obsidian however is generate on random maps and can be found by ANY culture. Thus the ciov you play could develop its own unique culture around that resource. And not even necessarily follow a real life culture such as the Aztecs.

If we were to compare this to evolution then this would be convergent evolution where one species adapts in a similar way to another species that are desperate from them, yet still fill the same niche. Such as various anteater-like species.

Likewise Human cultures can do the same thing. Where when in a similar environment with similar resources they can come to similar ways of solving the problem. However like animal adaptions they are still limited to what they were before. Such as an Asian culture might solve a problem different than a European culture, yet both have similar outcomes.

 

[johny smith]

No no. This is within the limits of the game rules. There would not be Darth vader and dinosaurs because dinosaurs already died out and Darth Vader is off on some far off planet. Obsidian however is generate on random maps and can be found by ANY culture. Thus the ciov you play could develop its own unique culture around that resource. And not even necessarily follow a real life culture such as the Aztecs.

Then why use any real names for civs at all? I mean it would seem that nothing matters but the name, and maybe some cool logo.

If we were to compare this to evolution then this would be convergent evolution where one species adapts in a similar way to another species that are desperate from them, yet still fill the same niche. Such as various anteater-like species.

What you mean evolution is real?

Likewise Human cultures can do the same thing. Where when in a similar environment with similar resources they can come to similar ways of solving the problem. However like animal adaptions they are still limited to what they were before. Such as an Asian culture might solve a problem different than a European culture, yet both have similar outcomes.

I think you are missing the point. A culture is a unique way of adapting to the environment. I would like to see the uniqueness then blend what is unique from them to new cultures.

If I get time, I may borrow bits and pieces of C2C to try and make the 6 eras I mentioned: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Copper, Bronze, and Iron.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

Then why use any real names for civs at all? I mean it would seem that nothing matters but the name, and maybe some cool logo.

This is something that will get addressed when dynamic culture gets implemented (I hope). Civs would start with basic names and generic ish flags and would then switch when they have a majority of a certain culture.

What you mean evolution is real?

Are you saying evolution isnt real????

I think you are missing the point. A culture is a unique way of adapting to the environment. I would like to see the uniqueness then blend what is unique from them to new cultures.

If I get time, I may borrow bits and pieces of C2C to try and make the 6 eras I mentioned: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Copper, Bronze, and Iron.

Borrow? You have no desire to work with everyone here? It takes some time discuss things here but that isn't always bad. Maybe it would be good to focus on fewer topics at a time though lol.

I'm personally not opposed to splitting up the early eras at all as long as it doesn't get out of hand with new techs, buildings etc. Lets be honest here, what gets played the most is the beginning of the game. I would love to see features that would make the beginning a more exciting time to play. These could include; nomad project, dynamic culture, multiple hominids, geo realism, and (new idea I was thinking about in bed last night) a new system of early monument building that would work as tile improvements.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

... a new system of early monument building that would work as tile improvements.

Especially for nomadic starts! Ones that you can evolve eg woodenhenge replaced by stonehenge. Closing down of them so they can be rediscovered later by Archaeologists.

 

[RidetheSpiral23]

Especially for nomadic starts! Ones that you can evolve eg woodenhenge replaced by stonehenge. Closing down of them so they can be rediscovered later by Archaeologists.

Exactly! This would be especially nice for nomad portion where you can't necessarily build buildings. If I recall correct you were the one very interested in the early portions of the game correct? Once thunderbrd and I are done with the personality archetypes I would love to get a discussion going on some progress moving on nomad start.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Then why use any real names for civs at all? I mean it would seem that nothing matters but the name, and maybe some cool logo.

What you mean evolution is real?

I think you are missing the point. A culture is a unique way of adapting to the environment. I would like to see the uniqueness then blend what is unique from them to new cultures.

If I get time, I may borrow bits and pieces of C2C to try and make the 6 eras I mentioned: Paleolithic, Mesolithic, Neolithic, Copper, Bronze, and Iron.

1. This was brought up before. We have had a thread about just naming each civ after a different color. However its the problem with leaders and where would they go?

Generalized Civs
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=450532

2. Yup. Or I should say the evidence suggests so.

3. Isn't that what I am saying? From what you said its like your ideas are on "tracks" and civs cannot diverge from them. While my ideas are more sandbox-ish where there is no specific path but general rules and push back from the game environment and the choices the player makes when playing.

4. That seems huge. Like its own mod. And I know C2C is huge but splitting the Prehistoric and Ancient Eras into even more eras is insane. I feel sorry for anyone who would hve to push back all the techs that come after those eras.

Also the prehistoric era has now been redone like 5 times or more. Two of which were reactions to your suggestions and posted tech tree when DH was threatening to leave.

History of Changes to the Prehistoric Era
Prehistoric NWA -> Hydro's Original Changes -> Hydro's Re-Make -> MrAzures Ideas -> DH's Nomadic Start stuff -> Vokarya's Tweaks -> Addation of Shamanism and Druidism as religious techs -> Swapping of Canine and Raft building -> Addition of Feline Domestication and Drying tech

 

[johny smith]

"Woodhenges" as in meaning similar structures made from wood are in many locations. The structure for stonehenge really is not a representation of more advanced improvements.

Anyway I mean as in borrow as in nothing would represent it better than me doing it. Be a modmod...or a separate mod. If it is similar enough than you guys have something to go off of instead of me debating topics on things that can not be done very quickly.

As much garbage as I stated, it would take quite some time to do, and do not even know if possible. I came back to the forums to try to make something for the early stages. I do not see how it helps me debating vs just doing something.

Anyway yes C2C is the only large mod to me that really sees continue development. It does not mean me helping you guys make whatever will allow me to work on the early stages, but it does not mean I would not like to integrate into one large mod either. You guys are way ahead of the game. Just I need to shut up and do something.

 

[Hydromancerx]

"Woodhenges" as in meaning similar structures made from wood are in many locations. The structure for stonehenge really is not a representation of more advanced improvements.

Those would be good as a building and/or wonder under Wood Working tech.

EDIT: Or even put between Wood Working and Megalith Construction techs.

 

[johny smith]

1. This was brought up before. We have had a thread about just naming each civ after a different color. However its the problem with leaders and where would they go?

Generalized Civs
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=450532

The only suggestion I had on leaders is that they are Genericized as well. And just make your traits as you go. For names any of the leaders I think should be tossed in a pool to be selected from any of the civs in the corresponding regions. Mayan leader for example could be an Aztec leader. Just some generic art for here is an example of an Mesoamerican leader...his name could be random....and his traits develop as you play.

2. Yup. Or I should say the evidence suggests so.

Ramen!!!

3. Isn't that what I am saying? From what you said its like your ideas are on "tracks" and civs cannot diverge from them. While my ideas are more sandbox-ish where there is no specific path but general rules and push back from the game environment and the choices the player makes when playing.

I mean yes more on a track then sandbox the track. So you start with all of the fragrances of a unique civ. The civ continues to change to something like either Maya V or Crab People(whatever for a name). For example say I am playing the Maya. Ok I know nothing about spearmen with metal spears, and my civ knows nothing about monotheism till the later eras.

Then later after the beginning phase I can learn basic things common to cultures from other regions. The other way around the Mesoameicans have some unique things that other regions learn like say Three Sisters farming or Chocolate.

4. That seems huge. Like its own mod. And I know C2C is huge but splitting the Prehistoric and Ancient Eras into even more eras is insane. I feel sorry for anyone who would hve to push back all the techs that come after those eras.

I am not thinking so much of increases techs. Just splitting your tech tree into more eras. Just more opportunities to define times to place events or changes.

Also the prehistoric era has now been redone like 5 times or more. Two of which were reactions to your suggestions and posted tech tree when DH was threatening to leave.

History of Changes to the Prehistoric Era
Prehistoric NWA -> Hydro's Original Changes -> Hydro's Re-Make -> MrAzures Ideas -> DH's Nomadic Start stuff -> Vokarya's Tweaks -> Addation of Shamanism and Druidism as religious techs -> Swapping of Canine and Raft building -> Addition of Feline Domestication and Drying tech

I am actually somewhat content with the techs, but would perhaps add more detail. Like I said before in answer 4. I want more increments for eras. So if Neanderthals need to disappear they could be gone by the Mesolithic. And a really big thing would be so that people could skip over a lot of eras to me. I think quite a few people would want to go straight to the future for example. More defined eras would give them a better chance to start right off where they want to.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

"Woodhenges" as in meaning similar structures made from wood are in many locations. The structure for stonehenge really is not a representation of more advanced improvements.

It is not an advanced improvement, except in the techniques needed to make it, but the Stonehenge did replace earlier versions one of which was a woodenhenge. Replace is probably the wrong word since the circles and mounds may have been additions and extensions rather than replacements. Perhaps what I a saying is that such structures are major investments in time and effort. Perhaps they need multiple stages built by multiple workers. The should also have major returns of some kind.

Recently the archaeologists have been suggesting that stone circles in Europe come in pairs, one for the living (eg celebrating birth and marriages) and one for the dead. Then there is that huge complex up in the Orkney Islands which seems to be the link between local tribes and the two circles.

 

[johny smith]

It is not an advanced improvement, except in the techniques needed to make it, but the Stonehenge did replace earlier versions one of which was a woodenhenge. Replace is probably the wrong word since the circles and mounds may have been additions and extensions rather than replacements. Perhaps what I a saying is that such structures are major investments in time and effort. Perhaps they need multiple stages built by multiple workers. The should also have major returns of some kind.

Recently the archaeologists have been suggesting that stone circles in Europe come in pairs, one for the living (eg celebrating birth and marriages) and one for the dead. Then there is that huge complex up in the Orkney Islands which seems to be the link between local tribes and the two circles.

I mean yes to the fact of stone being harder to work and taking more labor, but I mean the woodhenges could be more accurate with measuring alignments.

 

[rightfuture]

I hope, at some point, we "consider" revisiting the prehistoric and classic eras again, for the purpose of improving them, and splitting them further 'if' the case is compelling.
Why not start having that conversation now?

It could be a year or two down the road, but we can collectively or individually figure out some great potential improvements in the meantime.
Until then, my vote is that we have an ongoing discussion to suggest improvements, and work them out, until the day we could be ready.

The argument is a case for having ongoing discussions on potential improvements, as well as currently being developed ones. Who knows, we could have a compelling breakthrough in ideas.
I say let the ideas be as free as the development, and let people explore and discuss as they feel inspired to contribute to the conversation. (I do understand the realities of having too many ideas and not enough focus, but the reality is that having a free flow of ideas, means a free flow of solutions and improvements. What is selected as implementation is not the same as what should be freely discussed. Carefully discussing, selecting, and implementing the ideas is what helps them become better ones.) The point is, engage the community in open conversation; even challenge them to come up with solutions, and you might be surprised with what they can collectively produce. Foster luminaries and outliers, and you have brilliant participants such as Thunderbrd, PrimOver, Mr Azure, and Johny Smith here. Great potential C2C improving conversations and participants to be had here. You get more of what you encourage.

It could likewise inspire people to want those ideas in C2C so badly, that they may(more likely) step up to make it happen. Gameplay innovations start with ideas, unravel into the higher level logic of 'what do we want?' and evolve into 'how do we best/better implement it?' conversations. Sometimes this discussion even solves difficult 'how to' conversations and simplifies the possibilities of implementation even before a modder is motivated to work on modding them. 'I want to see this done better' is usually enough to get people into the conversation; 'I would like to see this in C2C right now' is enough to get people to consider what it takes (I should be a prime example of this) and take steps to edit around enough to start learning out how it could be done. I feel strongly that the greater community conversation is just as valuable in moving things forward, as the actual implementation is.

Asking the question 'Can we make it even better?' is one we shouldn't already have an answer to. I consider it a challenge to find a better way. Opening up this discussion to the greater community may just be speculation at first, but it can pave the way towards some profound solutions and transcendent insight. Some of this just takes time to work out.

Hydromancerx, Dancing Hoskuld, Strategy Only, and the rest of the developing ModTeam might not be ready to implement this or that feature, yet. ...And have really really good reasons to approach and consider things slowly (especially BIG changes). But you should let ideas and discussion flow, as freely as possible, around that implementation, so that compelling ideas can move, solve, and inspire the implementation and reality of C2C, and remove the friction of figuring out 'how to' get that feature in easier(or better). Improving organization is what will keep the channels (and modders) as free as possible, and the frustration of all to a minimum.
Be careful in controlling and limiting that stream of ideas to reality, and make sure that the ideas, bridge, and implementation are allowed to get even better. Be careful to build a flexible hierarchy of wisdom, to keep the necessary goals of controlled reality and progress through better organization. But let people be as free as possible to explore within the careful structure. Let the ideas inspire you to improve it, not to let the structure and carefulness of demotivate you to move slower. Don't let inspired ideas obsolete your progress. Let the ideas move you to step forward.

The C2C Mod-Team is the voice of disciplined and experienced reason, to pace the prototyping of improved features so that they can be 'Best' implemented, not to slow down progress.
The fact that they both inspire free thought, and yet focus and organize careful planning efforts that keep C2C moving and improving, is what keeps C2C growing and 'on the rails' in the best possible direction. It is the careful management of the bridge between ideas and implementation that transitions the best of our collective imagination into reality and sets the pace of C2C.
Never forget that your job as a gatekeeper is to have improving movement across that bridge, so that C2C can become even greater.

The final point, is simply to make ongoing progress; to let ideas, innovation, and implementation free to move C2C as profoundly and inspirationally as wise. Solutions and implementation discussion should be as free and open as the ideas to keep things moving. The real bottleneck is the will, and the wisdom in doing things correctly. Encourage that and some improving organization and you will see your troubles melt away so you can all focus on just creating something even more amazing than was possible yesterday. Your goal is not to clamp down on vision, but to find a way to nurture it.
-
-
I think revisiting things yearly is part of an ongoing cycle, and there is a rhythm between the old and the new, the organized and the free-form, the concrete and the flexible, the reality and the dream, and the careful, the creation, and the pacing of momentum. Organize the cycle, and let all the people focus on their strengths to ease their will into reality, so that we can smooth out our limitations and move past our obstacles. And let people find their way into helping you guys make it easier, better, and give everyone, including yourselves, the freedom to explore further and better.
We have to reach outside ourselves, to find what we lack, and to see what we can't.
We have to engage the possibilities of improvement and becoming even better, so we can remove that unnecessary friction wisely to be free ourselves.

Anything we force, usually fails, anything we carefully inspire, bears fruit.
You are all cultivating greatness.
Even the deepest discussion manure can seed the freshest, greenest, most amazing tree.
You have to make it possible, plausible, and probable.
Please Let the ongoing and inspired conversations lay the most fertile soil.

 

[Thunderbrd]

The only suggestion I had on leaders is that they are Genericized as well. And just make your traits as you go. For names any of the leaders I think should be tossed in a pool to be selected from any of the civs in the corresponding regions. Mayan leader for example could be an Aztec leader. Just some generic art for here is an example of an Mesoamerican leader...his name could be random....and his traits develop as you play.

Exactly. To some extent this is one of the goals here that I strive for. BUT it must be said that this is one option I seek to explore. Another involves all civs starting as what civs were present in the era the game starts, with a couple of preset leaders for that era, and as time goes on, the civs advance, split, develop, leaders die and are replaced by new ones etc... more real world. But all under option structures so that all civ players can get what THEY want. Much of this genericalizing the civs stuff is a big part of an eventual agenda in all this.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Ramen!!!

Your Flying Spaghetti Monster has no place here! Send it back to the cosmic teapot where it belongs!

I am not thinking so much of increases techs. Just splitting your tech tree into more eras. Just more opportunities to define times to place events or changes.

What would splitting out the era into more era accomplish? Other than having more eras to go through and having to have more colors on the tech tree.

Then later after the beginning phase I can learn basic things common to cultures from other regions. The other way around the Mesoameicans have some unique things that other regions learn like say Three Sisters farming or Chocolate.

We already have chocolate as resource. And its too bad we don' have a bean resource or we could have an awesome bonus building if you had corn, squash and beans all in one city. I may have to try to make a bean resource graphic.

Asking the question 'Can we make it even better?' is one we shouldn't already have an answer to. I consider it a challenge to find a better way. Opening up this discussion to the greater community may just be speculation at first, but it can pave the way towards some profound solutions and transcendent insight. Some of this just takes time to work out.

Sure we could. Do we want to overhaul it every 4 months? No. I am up for constant tweaking and updating to make it better but not overhauling it over and over. We should be focusing on other parts of the mod like Multi-Maps and Nomadic start or the Combat Mod and the Galactic Era. Things that have hardly been touched and unfinished. Not stuff that we have spend months on doing and redoing over and over.

And I know if you ply the game you play this era a lot. But we should add thing to the mod in later eras too that people will want to play the game longer to get to.

 

[johny smith]

Exactly. To some extent this is one of the goals here that I strive for. BUT it must be said that this is one option I seek to explore. Another involves all civs starting as what civs were present in the era the game starts, with a couple of preset leaders for that era, and as time goes on, the civs advance, split, develop, leaders die and are replaced by new ones etc... more real world. But all under option structures so that all civ players can get what THEY want. Much of this genericalizing the civs stuff is a big part of an eventual agenda in all this.

I am good with the idea of course. If there is no known leader like there will be in many cases for civilizations, I am suggesting something generic for the unkowns. For example some Pacific Northwest Group back 3000 years ago.

What would splitting out the era into more era accomplish? Other than having more eras to go through and having to have more colors on the tech tree.

It would accomplish making a more accurate time to change from Sumerian civilization at one point then change perhaps to Babylonia. Or how about Etruscan to Roman. Olmec to Maya. You need some points to make it happen instead of the entire history of the metal production in one era.

Mesolithic is when large monuments appear more frequently. Neolithic would be another be change to warmer environment. There are plenty of things happening that certain animals, units, map events, and etc that would need an xml tag to link to.

If it is only concern with colors on the tech bar....repeat colors in these series. I don't know, but if you would not like to have animal x die out after the ice age because your tech bar will change colors...I do not know what to say.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I am good with the idea of course. If there is no known leader like there will be in many cases for civilizations, I am suggesting something generic for the unkowns. For example some Pacific Northwest Group back 3000 years ago.

We're still a little in the air about the 'no known leader' scenario. I think the solution will either be a randomized leader mechanism (with a random naming mechanism that operates via culture) and/or just making up a number of fill-ins where necessary. I'd like to think it can be done, the random system, but I've got some concerns about some programming issues that may produce. I may yet, however, be very capable of figuring out ways around some of the hurdles that will exist there. Usually, there's multiple ways to skin a cat and if you think outside the box you can come up with something... then again usually this is when another programmer shows me there was a better and far more advanced way to do it than I would've ever conceived of... lol

It would accomplish making a more accurate time to change from Sumerian civilization at one point then change perhaps to Babylonia. Or how about Etruscan to Roman. Olmec to Maya. You need some points to make it happen instead of the entire history of the metal production in one era.

Mesolithic is when large monuments appear more frequently. Neolithic would be another be change to warmer environment. There are plenty of things happening that certain animals, units, map events, and etc that would need an xml tag to link to.

If it is only concern with colors on the tech bar....repeat colors in these series. I don't know, but if you would not like to have animal x die out after the ice age because your tech bar will change colors...I do not know what to say.

One thing that could help your case is to bring to the table a near complete proposal. I'm all for adjusting the era splits if it can be shown to be necessary to do so. Some of your 'reasons' are good, but perhaps not enough without showing us how some adjustments to the tech tree would be made that would support those concepts.

But then again, I have seen these discussions before and usually the proposal is shot down due to simply the enormous effort it would represent. If it were simply DONE in a mod to a mod form you could show us not only the how and the why but since you've DONE it, we would be able to determine what kind of major mopup would be needed to fully include it without further issue.

As you say, and I often agree, sometimes the debate can drag down development if you have a strong vision and a clear plan and can really only share the depth of it to us only by enacting it. Just make sure its not something you're forcing on anyone, thus keep it modular at first and if there's disagreement over whether it should or should not be 'done' or 'included', we can often resolve that with game options or further discussion at that time.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

You also get more era splash screens. You also need different era art styles.

 

[Hydromancerx]

You also get more era splash screens. You also need different era art styles.

Don't forget Era music too.

Anywho, when Mr Azure suggested we split up the future eras people had a fit. Not sure why. If we are going to be adding more eras then we should also add more future eras too like Mr Azure planned.

 

[Praetyre]

Where is MrAzure these days anyway? I remember seeing a metric ton of posts from him before my reappearance on this forum, but nobody seems to be doing much in the way of actually implementing his changes.

I'm ok with reusing soundtracks for what I consider "sub" eras. The main 9 being the eras, and all the eras up until Modern being subdivided into 3.