Possible Future Direction (personal view)

[AIAndy]

Some example rules to clarify what I described as capabilities of the lower layers (syntax is not important yet). It also made clear to me that having relations with values would be useful.

<class Name="UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON" Abstract="1">
  <inherit>BASE_UNIT</inherit>
  <helpname>Early Recon Units</helpname>
  <property Name="Level" Type="float">0</property>
  <property Name="Strength" Type="float">1 + 2*Level</property>
  <relationentry Name="StrengthBonus" ApplyToAbstract="0">
    <relvar Name="Source">this</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Target">UNITCLASS_ANIMAL</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Bonus" Type="float">1.5 + 0.5*Level</relvar>
  <relationentry>
</class>

<class Name="UNIT_WANDERER" Abstract="0">
  <inherit>UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON</inherit>
  <helpname>Wanderer</helpname>
  <property Name="Level">0</property>
</class>

<class Name="UNIT_SCOUT" Abstract="0">
  <inherit>UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON</inherit>
  <helpname>Scout</helpname>
  <property Name="Level">2</property>
</class>

<class Name="UNIT_WARSCOUT" Abstract="0">
  <inherit>UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON</inherit>
  <helpname>War Scout</helpname>
  <property Name="Level">2</property>
  <property Name="Strength">super.Strength * 1.2</property>
  <relationentry Name="StrengthBonus" ApplyToAbstract="0" Overwrite"1">
    <relvar Name="Source">this</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Target">UNITCLASS_ANIMAL</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Bonus" Type="float">0.75 + 0.25*Level</relvar>
  <relationentry>
</class>

This shows how a kind of template is used to make a bunch of units according to a template with some variation in the last case.

 

[ls612]

Some example rules to clarify what I described as capabilities of the lower layers (syntax is not important yet). It also made clear to me that having relations with values would be useful.

<class Name="UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON" Abstract="1">
  <inherit>BASE_UNIT</inherit>
  <helpname>Early Recon Units</helpname>
  <property Name="Level" Type="float">0</property>
  <property Name="Strength" Type="float">1 + 2*Level</property>
  <relationentry Name="StrengthBonus" ApplyToAbstract="0">
    <relvar Name="Source">this</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Target">UNITCLASS_ANIMAL</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Bonus" Type="float">1.5 + 0.5*Level</relvar>
  <relationentry>
</class>

<class Name="UNIT_WANDERER" Abstract="0">
  <inherit>UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON</inherit>
  <helpname>Wanderer</helpname>
  <property Name="Level">0</property>
</class>

<class Name="UNIT_SCOUT" Abstract="0">
  <inherit>UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON</inherit>
  <helpname>Scout</helpname>
  <property Name="Level">2</property>
</class>

<class Name="UNIT_WARSCOUT" Abstract="0">
  <inherit>UNITCLASS_EARLYRECON</inherit>
  <helpname>War Scout</helpname>
  <property Name="Level">2</property>
  <property Name="Strength">super.Strength * 1.2</property>
  <relationentry Name="StrengthBonus" ApplyToAbstract="0" Overwrite"1">
    <relvar Name="Source">this</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Target">UNITCLASS_ANIMAL</relvar>
    <relvar Name="Bonus" Type="float">0.75 + 0.25*Level</relvar>
  <relationentry>
</class>

This shows how a kind of template is used to make a bunch of units according to a template with some variation in the last case.

That makes much more sense now. So the things like strength and level would then be defined in a ruleset (a DLL really), but can also be related to each other in the XML (or SQL, I'd prefer that personally).

 

[AIAndy]

That makes much more sense now. So the things like strength and level would then be defined in a ruleset (a DLL really), but can also be related to each other in the XML (or SQL, I'd prefer that personally).

The ruleset would mostly be XML but use SQL where it is useful like for relation-bound entities or modifiers which I will write an example for later.

 

[BlueGenie]

Just wondering if this will also be set up with MP games in mind, to make them work properly without OOS's and such things?

Cheers

 

[AIAndy]

Just wondering if this will also be set up with MP games in mind, to make them work properly without OOS's and such things?

Cheers

We have not talked about MP yet.
One possibility would be to have remote UIs. The calculation of the game would still only happen on one computer but more than one can connect UIs to it. That would require to send all information to be displayed over the network.
The other possibility would be to synchronize the games on all computers similar to how it works in Civ4. Only the UI commands would need to be sent over the network that way as all computers would calculate the full game. The disadvantage is that all game code has to be deterministic to keep the games synced and similar to now sources of OOS are not easy to find.
I think option one will cause less issues in the long run and would allow for very slim UI clients. There is more network traffic that way but that should not be that much of a problem nowadays.

 

[Koshling]

We have not talked about MP yet.
One possibility would be to have remote UIs. The calculation of the game would still only happen on one computer but more than one can connect UIs to it. That would require to send all information to be displayed over the network.
The other possibility would be to synchronize the games on all computers similar to how it works in Civ4. Only the UI commands would need to be sent over the network that way as all computers would calculate the full game. The disadvantage is that all game code has to be deterministic to keep the games synced and similar to now sources of OOS are not easy to find.
I think option one will cause less issues in the long run and would allow for very slim UI clients. There is more network traffic that way but that should not be that much of a problem nowadays.

That was my intention, though I also want to support a PBEM-like (save file transported) MP mode, but more loosely coupled than Civ IV's so that:

1) Out of order play is allowed with certain restrictions to prevent 2 moves at once relative to an opponent within a tactical field
2) A means to force an automated turn to occur (ether by UI assertion that it should, possibly password protected), or in a mode that DOES have a central computer, but only acting as essentially an email broker and AI turn run location (in this latter mode the broker would auto-play the turn after a game-specified maximum timeout in which the player has not submitted their move)

Note that to better support (2) I would like to see more advanced automation capabilities that amount to crudely scripted AI being present. This would allow things like the following:

i) On an automated turn units that are actively threatened will perform limited defensive moves (to better defensive terrain, into cities, etc.)

ii) Normal automation to allow a degree of command queuing, so you can (for example) tell a worker to goto a location and then start building improvement X, then build a road, etc. Having somewhat longer term queued orders set up this way would then reduce the negative impacts of having one of your turns automated. In an ideal world this would lead into the ability to select AI-powered goals for units as orders as the fallback for automated turns (e.g. - defend city X)

 

[ls612]

I have a couple of questions about future plans for this.

1. Does anyone else have opinions on how we license AXXXXE? My vote would be to make it open source and license it using an open source license. That would allow us to use many open source libraries in our project and save us some time, as well as making things more customizable.
2. What is everyone's opinion on using OGRE as our graphics engine?
3. When does anyone want to start development of AXXXXE?

 

[Raven Destroyer]

i was wondering would Building and unit Production be 2 things or just like it is now in Civ 1 thing?

(aka i want a clubman so every building has to wait on it [what i find silly])

 

[ls612]

i was wondering would Building and unit Production be 2 things or just like it is now in Civ 1 thing?

(aka i want a clubman so every building has to wait on it [what i find silly])

That would absolutely be possible with AXXXXE (the engine). You would have to define what stuff costs (and what types of costs there are) in XML schemas and then define what costs do in a DLL (or internally depending on what we end up doing).

 

[rightfuture]

(edited for clairity)
I think we should consider all real options ideally, realistically, and honestly, and decide upon the best answers we can up with right now.
This includes helping to make it faster, better AI, new features, fixing problems, and working out things like Multi-Maps, the Galactic Era, Navigble Rivers, Weather and Climate, A epic nomadic Ice Age start for humanity, and a transcendent exploration of the the future.
(Obviously the Mod-Team is doing a great job of moving us in the right direction) They will always need help!
I think we should make a blueprint of ideas, work on them in an ongoing discussion in the mod-mods section (I recommend a C2C 2.0 thread by Strategy Only). And work on both creating this new version of C2C 2.0 and continue bridging and improving the ideas of the original.
-C2C 1.0 can be a good foundation to keep working out ideas an not having to start from scratch or wait for the new game to be finished.
-And C2C 2.0 can be more flexible and start off as an outline of the best of old C2C ideas and the best of the fresh start/blank slate to create an ideal working version.
-both projects can be a bridge to each other so that they can share what can be ported either way, and we have a great current working version, and a developing new one that is open to changes and improvements.
This gives people the ability to move back and forth as they chose, and not get locked in.
Developed together and simultaneously, work can naturally shift between the two, allowing new ideas for both, experimenting, and continuing to see C2C grow without trading old for new, and vice versa.
Get tired of a intractable problem(at the moment) shift to development on the other mod. Get tired of modding, or discussing, or playing the other, shift to a part.
This way C2C won't have an identity crisis and you have the best of both worlds, current working version, and future developing one. Keeping the parts compatible will work to apply to both.
Having a new one will keep everyone who want something better motivated, and keeping the current version developing and playable give the team something else work on and players to play.
This way things will keep going without new ideas being a distraction. This way C2C can transition to the future smoother.

Anyone can help us move this conversation forward.
What do you personally think?
@Everybody

C2C can be the best of both, why limit what you can do?

 

[rightfuture]

(edited)
A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step - Chinese philosopher Laozi
You never know what you can do unless you try. You never know if you help make the best Civ game better unless you start.

“The wise man must remember that while he is a descendant of the past, he is a parent of the future.” ~ Herbert Spencer

“It doesn’t matter where you are, you are nowhere compared to where you can go.” ~ Bob Proctor

“It is never too late to be what you might have been.” – George Eliot

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.” ~ Albert Einstein.

“What the mind can conceive, it can achieve.” – Napoleon Hill

“Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done.” - Robert A. Heinlein

“There is only one thing that makes a dream impossible to achieve: the fear of failure.” - Paulo Coelho

History is just littered with problems that were solved that were supposed to be impossible.
Paul Wolfowitz
The New World and the Apollo Program anyone? Owning a car was once a dream. or a computer. or a video phone. What's next? What you think is impossible or improbable?

"Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp -- or what's a heaven for?" - Robert Browning

Civilization -
"The game I always wanted to make"
-Sid Meier

What CIV game would you like to make or see made?
What ideas do you have to make CIV and C2C even better?
What would you like in a future version of C2C? An improved current version?
This thread is your chance to say what you like. To help build the ideas for the future.
I would love to hear what everyone thinks.

Your thoughts could help C2C become the Ultimate CIV game, what is good can be made even better, so all you have to do is help us figure out what it should be.
We would all love to here from you.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”
- Margaret Mead

"One more turn"
One more try to make C2C even better!

 

[rightfuture]

Take a chance, a step, a look to see what's possible, and what's in the next valley / over the next hill.
Your scope is as limited as your horizon.
Stretch your limits and believe that it can be done. You can step in any direction. You never know how far that could take you until you try!
More walls are imagined than actually exist.

We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.
- Aristotle

If you keep trying to exceed your limits and overcome challenges, you might surprise yourself and get there.
You are less likely to reach a goal you don't aim for.
So aim high and surprise yourself with what you can reach, it might be something even better than you expected!
Imagine what could be done if more people would help.
And do your part to help make C2C the best CIV game it can be, the best game you can play.
Start by just speaking up!

Anyone can reach out and help C2C, all you need to do is talk and try to help.
You might surprise yourself, sharing your opinion about things and even learning how to just edit/tweak files is not hard.
You can help make C2C and CIV better!

"Do or do not, there is no try!" - wise one

 

[rightfuture]

(edited for clairification)

 

[Raven Destroyer]

my ideas i will share although i sadly can't share my (limited) knowledge on XML and such nor can't learn much my mental status isn't helping me with achieving anything

also Rightfuture there is also something as a Edit button

 

[rightfuture]

Thanks for responding Raven Destoyer,
I'm just trying to keep the ideas flowing, the vision soaring, and the blueprint being outlined.
I just want to keep inspiring you all to keep the debate for improvement flowing and the progress moving in the best possible direction.

(I do know about editing, the separate posts are ideas (tied together) unto themselves and I was trying to illustrate points and encourage responses. I could have just listed quotes. They didn't come all at once, and I did edit them a number of times to make a point. There is method to my loose thoughts. Take a second look! )

Maybe this all inspires someone; maybe it inspires you to do a little more.
You don't have to have new ideas or experience to edit or debate / share opinions, and be a part of the conversation.
Your will to see a better Civ/C2C is what matters..(together and individually - in chorus).
Our hope is to help see that happen.

No matter what part you play, and what you have to offer, you might surprise yourself. We are all only what we are, what we can become is beyond our immediate awareness.
So what do you think the future of C2C and CIV should/could be? (No-one has the ability to get it all right.)

 

[Raven Destroyer]

You don't have to have new ideas or experience to edit or debate / share opinions, and be a part of the conversation.

eh to attribute to a Debate and part of the Conversation you do need to know what you are attributing to
and having no idea's or Experience usually lead to silly situations that can lead to a derailment of the Conversation

Also from all the people on CivFanatics i've seen your really an odd fellow (not meant disrespectful) i can't really figure out what you are stating beside the literal way that most people read it confuses me a little oh well it's a forum anyone can join in on a conversation and it's always a mix of people and that is also what i like about forums
i have nothing against you i just find you a little odd that's all

 

[ls612]

In a more serious news update I've hit a brick wall trying to get either MOGRE or another option I tried using (Axiom 3D, a full port of MOGRE to .NET as opposed to a wrapper) to compile in x64 (they only offer 32 bit precompiled binaries). I do not especially like working with graphics stuff anyways, I'm much more familiar with data concepts and stuff like that.

Does anyone else want try getting this to work, or should we just wait some more and figure out more details about the broader engine setup before continuing?

 

[rightfuture]

(edit for clarification)

eh to attribute to a Debate and part of the Conversation you do need to know what you are attributing to
and having no idea's or Experience usually lead to silly situations that can lead to a derailment of the Conversation

Also from all the people on CivFanatics i've seen your really an odd fellow (not meant disrespectful) i can't really figure out what you are stating beside the literal way that most people read it confuses me a little oh well it's a forum anyone can join in on a conversation and it's always a mix of people and that is also what i like about forums
i have nothing against you i just find you a little odd that's all

Let me be more clear.
If I come off odd sometimes, it is probably the result of either exhaustion(caused by sleep apnea),
or the fact that I'm not explaining my thoughts or purposes completely or clearly(due to the sleep apnea, ADHD, and/or deeper subjects that I'm not used to explaining to others - way overschools/read.)
I am glad to always clarify what I was trying to say.
All you have to do is tell me or ask.

The quotes above were just to inspire everyone, including you, to share your opinions and participate in debate;
even with no modding experience, anyone can potentially keep discussions and debates going on what people like, want, or don't like,
and your ongoing discussion can help improve C2C, by keeping ideas alive and helping things(especially bigger problems/ideas that take a long time to figure out work out a better solution that people agree with).
As long as it doesn't derail the modders progress, productive debate can organize people's thoughts and lead to potential breakthroughs, workarounds.
For example, you don't have to know how to mod future techs to find and discuss the value of including or moving a tech. (I like transporters, it belongs after lasers because..etc. etc.)
For those who play games, you can say, "I like the way that this works better, It's more fun."
If someone is motivated enough to change something, they may start learning the basics of editing and modding so they will be more likely to help with getting it in.
The C2C Community works best when everyone, especially players, actually cares enough to comment on something productively.
The more people who talk, the more things are worked out.
Disagree with something, propose a solution.
Even too much here, too little here disagreements can be worked out.
If you think it can make it better, then C2C wants your opinions and solutions!
For the most part, No problem, is too big to eventually work out.

 

[Laskaris]

That was my intention, though I also want to support a PBEM-like (save file transported) MP mode, but more loosely coupled than Civ IV's so that:

1) Out of order play is allowed with certain restrictions to prevent 2 moves at once relative to an opponent within a tactical field
2) A means to force an automated turn to occur (ether by UI assertion that it should, possibly password protected), or in a mode that DOES have a central computer, but only acting as essentially an email broker and AI turn run location (in this latter mode the broker would auto-play the turn after a game-specified maximum timeout in which the player has not submitted their move)

Note that to better support (2) I would like to see more advanced automation capabilities that amount to crudely scripted AI being present. This would allow things like the following:

i) On an automated turn units that are actively threatened will perform limited defensive moves (to better defensive terrain, into cities, etc.)

ii) Normal automation to allow a degree of command queuing, so you can (for example) tell a worker to goto a location and then start building improvement X, then build a road, etc. Having somewhat longer term queued orders set up this way would then reduce the negative impacts of having one of your turns automated. In an ideal world this would lead into the ability to select AI-powered goals for units as orders as the fallback for automated turns (e.g. - defend city X)

I think PBEM should definitely be in. One of the advantages of PBEM is that it makes multiplayer games with a larger group much easier. It's hard to get a group of five players organized so that everyone has time to play on the same day, at the same time, and so that everyone stays connected to a server without dropping out... With 10 ore more players, you can totally forget about that to begin with. But it's possible to have a great multiplayer game with 10 people via PBEM.

One other suggestion of mine in regards to turns, which I think would be a substantial improvement over the Civilization series, would be to have the turns play out in a "plan and go" or "we go" system. That is, players don't make their turns one after the other, as in Civilization. Instead, all players give orders for their turns, and then, when everyone has made his input, the game moves forward one turn and the results for everyone's orders are calculated simultaneously.

There are some (usually military) strategy games that use the turn-based "plan and go" system, and I think it is definitely superior to the old sequential turn system Civilization has. It's more realistic, it offers more surprises for the players and it requires smarter play.

 

[Thunderbrd]

One other suggestion of mine in regards to turns, which I think would be a substantial improvement over the Civilization series, would be to have the turns play out in a "plan and go" or "we go" system. That is, players don't make their turns one after the other, as in Civilization. Instead, all players give orders for their turns, and then, when everyone has made his input, the game moves forward one turn and the results for everyone's orders are calculated simultaneously.

I'd support that. There's some very good games I've played with that sort of turn concept and they were rather fun as a result. I think it would serve a Civ style game very well. Might even be better though if both options were allowed at game setup.