It means I could share the source code with serious programmers who want to help and are ready to work in a coordinated way.
Possible new civilization game: make our own!
- Thread starter Steph
- Start date
Graceheart the Leopard
Resident Amur leopard
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 3,476
I have another question: will this game be free or will we have to pay to get this? Also, will you copyright this game or will you release this under the GNU Public License or some other Copyleft license?
Bravo
I would also assume that your design would be sufficiently modular that, say, the set of objects comprising ground combat could be worked with on its own, with adherence to a standardized application interface.But you're literally a pro - I'll trust your decisions.
Best,
Oz
I'll see when I finish it, which is far from easy given the limited time I can spend on this. Because implied in your question is the fact I have absolutly no funding for it, and it comes after everything else.
I don't know what your position about this is, but suppose I make it cheap at 30 , if I want to work on it full time (alone, not counting any expenses for graphics or whatever), I need to sell at least 200 copies every months.
If I can't count on this, I can only work from time to time on it, and obviously it won't move forward very fast.
I'm not really doing it that way. Instead, I have a very generic approachn where very object has a list of "attributes" than can be easily expanded.
So let say you don't have morale in your game, and want to add it. You would need to go in the file defining the list of allowed attributes, say you have a new one called "morale", and then modify the functions to add the effect, which are likely to be scripted in a way at the end.
So would you not hypothetically need an object called "Morale" to fit into the inheritance chain of objects? And isn't adding a scripting interface to an object model essentially equivalent to designing an API?
Best,
Oz
No, you need a new "Morale" attributes that you can add to the Unit object. The advatange is that all the editor interfaces, save game etc. don't need to change.
Graceheart the Leopard
Resident Amur leopard
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 3,476
I actually would prefer if you posted this on the internet for free.
No kidding? I'd actually prefer if the butcher could put the meat in my fridge for free also.
DJ Bonebraker
a.k.a Laura
Well said.... Personally, I wouldn't mind paying for it provided it (a) is even 1/3 as good as what I've been reading so far sounds, and (b) it's sold under a GPL rather than a EULA.... Much like Red Hat Linux and SUSE Linux cost money, but are still under the GPL....
I don' tknow at all how it will be released yet. Because if I ask for something, it's only if I consider it good enough.
I was thinking about a donation system, but experience shows everybody is like Farsight and are ready to contribute between zero and nothing.
I have some other more original ideas, but to soon to tell.
what I'd like to do is some "minigames", like just tactical battles to start, very cheap, something like 5$, just to get some cash and help with the development of the whole game.
I was thinking about a donation system, but experience shows everybody is like Farsight and are ready to contribute between zero and nothing.
I have some other more original ideas, but to soon to tell.
what I'd like to do is some "minigames", like just tactical battles to start, very cheap, something like 5$, just to get some cash and help with the development of the whole game.
nick0515
C7 Fanatic
I too would be willing to pay some money for this Steph. I'd pay five bucks for a battle only test game too.
I love and support freeware and open source stuff. But that works best when developed by a whole community dedicated to making a free product. This situation seems different to me. You are doing all the work yourself. If you want some financial reward for all your hours and hours of work, then fair enough.
I love and support freeware and open source stuff. But that works best when developed by a whole community dedicated to making a free product. This situation seems different to me. You are doing all the work yourself. If you want some financial reward for all your hours and hours of work, then fair enough.
Graceheart the Leopard
Resident Amur leopard
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2007
- Messages
- 3,476
In that case, I guess I could pay for this.
DJ Bonebraker
a.k.a Laura
I'd buy that in a heartbeat!
...It would be great for killing some time between classes when I've got all my homework done.
AHEM
Steph, you're obviously very good at what you do, and there are (1) plenty of crapola games out there and (2) the "civ" species is certainly well established. I don't know how easy this is in Europe, but have you thought about the business plan / VC approach?
As Ever,
Oz
Oups, I'm sorry about that, there is a "almost" missing in the sentence. A few people contributes, and generously. 7 people to be precise, in 8 months. That's why I don't consider it a reliable way to finance such a project at the moment.AHEM
Not really, because this is not a point where I fill confident. I'd be very happy to partner with someone who would feel like handling this.
However, I have absolutly no funding at all.
I've started to program the battles, turn and orders.
After some thinking, it seems a real order system (where you select each unit, give it an order, and wait for a resolution at the end) is too complex. It requires more coding, and may be difficult to play.
On the other hand, I don't want a system where you can for instance bombard with all your units, kill another guy before it can retaliate. As the range of units is bigger in my tactical game, it will be unfair.
So I want a system with some reciprocity, but that stays simple.
So here is how it will work, through an example.
PlayerA has 3 units, A1, A2, A3. PlayerB has 3 units B1, B2, B3. Eahc unit has 1000 men at starts.
Range attack phase 1
PlayerA can use range attack with any of his units. He selects a units, when a target, when attack. The result are immediately computed and displayed, but not applied. A1 attacks B1, kills 500. A2 Attacks B1, kills 200.
Then PlayerB can use range attack with any of his units. As the results are not applied yet, he retaliates at full strength.
So if B1 attakcs A2, it attacks with 1000 men. Let say it kills 300.
When Player B has finished the phase, the results are applied.
B1 takes 700 losses. A2 takes 300.
Movement phase
PlayerA can move any units which did not fire in phase 1. So he can move only A3.
Then PlayerB can move any units which di not fire in phase 1. He can move B2 and B3, but opt to move B2 only.
If A3 comes adjacent to B2, and playerB wants to move B2, there is a chance it is "stuck" by A3, and cannot move.
Range attack phase 2
PlayerA can move any units which did not fire in phase 1. Units which move can fire, but at reduced strength (50%).
Then same for PlayerB. Here again, the results are applied at the end.
So A3 can fire, at 50%, it tries to shoot B2, and kills 100.
B1 cannot fire (it did in phase 1). B2, can at 50% (it moved), but at full strength. It kills 200 units from A3. B3 can fire at full strength, and kill 400 units from A3.
The results are then all applied at once. A3 takes 600 losses, and B2 100.
Melee phase
PlayerA can attack in melee with every unit which is adjacent to the ennemy. Each attack is played immediately, but the results are applied only at the end.
PlayerB can then attack in melee with every unit which is adjacent to the ennemy, and is not already involved in a melee. Each attack is played immediately, but the results are applied only at the end.
Example: Player A has A1 and A2, with 1000 men. B has B1 and B2 with 1000 men.
A1 attacks B1. A1 takes 300 dead, B1 600. A2 attacks B1. A2 takes 400 dead, B1 500. Here, the resolution is done with B1 still 1000 strong, as it is supposed to be a simultaneous battle.
Then it is player B turn in this phase. As B1 is already in melee, he cannot use it. But he can decides B2 attacks A2. The battle is done with each at 1000 strength. Result = 400 dead for A2, 300 for B2.
Then all the results are applied.
A1 ends with 700 men, A2 with 200 -400+400 dead). B1 is destroyed (1100 dead). B2 ends with 700 men.
Note that the order for each phase will be determine randolmy. There is a 50% for each player to "win", modified by some parameters (leader skills, communication, etc). The "winner" can decide to play each phase first or second.
After some thinking, it seems a real order system (where you select each unit, give it an order, and wait for a resolution at the end) is too complex. It requires more coding, and may be difficult to play.
On the other hand, I don't want a system where you can for instance bombard with all your units, kill another guy before it can retaliate. As the range of units is bigger in my tactical game, it will be unfair.
So I want a system with some reciprocity, but that stays simple.
So here is how it will work, through an example.
PlayerA has 3 units, A1, A2, A3. PlayerB has 3 units B1, B2, B3. Eahc unit has 1000 men at starts.
Range attack phase 1
PlayerA can use range attack with any of his units. He selects a units, when a target, when attack. The result are immediately computed and displayed, but not applied. A1 attacks B1, kills 500. A2 Attacks B1, kills 200.
Then PlayerB can use range attack with any of his units. As the results are not applied yet, he retaliates at full strength.
So if B1 attakcs A2, it attacks with 1000 men. Let say it kills 300.
When Player B has finished the phase, the results are applied.
B1 takes 700 losses. A2 takes 300.
Movement phase
PlayerA can move any units which did not fire in phase 1. So he can move only A3.
Then PlayerB can move any units which di not fire in phase 1. He can move B2 and B3, but opt to move B2 only.
If A3 comes adjacent to B2, and playerB wants to move B2, there is a chance it is "stuck" by A3, and cannot move.
Range attack phase 2
PlayerA can move any units which did not fire in phase 1. Units which move can fire, but at reduced strength (50%).
Then same for PlayerB. Here again, the results are applied at the end.
So A3 can fire, at 50%, it tries to shoot B2, and kills 100.
B1 cannot fire (it did in phase 1). B2, can at 50% (it moved), but at full strength. It kills 200 units from A3. B3 can fire at full strength, and kill 400 units from A3.
The results are then all applied at once. A3 takes 600 losses, and B2 100.
Melee phase
PlayerA can attack in melee with every unit which is adjacent to the ennemy. Each attack is played immediately, but the results are applied only at the end.
PlayerB can then attack in melee with every unit which is adjacent to the ennemy, and is not already involved in a melee. Each attack is played immediately, but the results are applied only at the end.
Example: Player A has A1 and A2, with 1000 men. B has B1 and B2 with 1000 men.
A1 attacks B1. A1 takes 300 dead, B1 600. A2 attacks B1. A2 takes 400 dead, B1 500. Here, the resolution is done with B1 still 1000 strong, as it is supposed to be a simultaneous battle.
Then it is player B turn in this phase. As B1 is already in melee, he cannot use it. But he can decides B2 attacks A2. The battle is done with each at 1000 strength. Result = 400 dead for A2, 300 for B2.
Then all the results are applied.
A1 ends with 700 men, A2 with 200 -400+400 dead). B1 is destroyed (1100 dead). B2 ends with 700 men.
Note that the order for each phase will be determine randolmy. There is a 50% for each player to "win", modified by some parameters (leader skills, communication, etc). The "winner" can decide to play each phase first or second.
Just to clarify a little something.
Although each attack is solved immediately, the result is not known before the end of the phase.
For example, you select A1 to shoot at B1. And B1 will shoot at A2.
Each unit is turned to face its target. A small indicator tells you each unit has done something during the turn.
When you hit "resolve", each unit range attack animation is played at the same time, then death animation are played, and then you get a log with the results.
Although each attack is solved immediately, the result is not known before the end of the phase.
For example, you select A1 to shoot at B1. And B1 will shoot at A2.
Each unit is turned to face its target. A small indicator tells you each unit has done something during the turn.
When you hit "resolve", each unit range attack animation is played at the same time, then death animation are played, and then you get a log with the results.
general-jcl
King
Will any defensive unit flee for example after too much losses during attack phase 1?
And will any offensive abort his attack if it has suffered to many losses during defensive fire phase?
And will any offensive abort his attack if it has suffered to many losses during defensive fire phase?
I will probably introduce some kind of morale a bit later.
However, there is no such thing as "defensive" unit.
In attack phase 1, the resolution of the attack is simultaenous. Then, every units move before the next phase.
So a unit has many losses in attack phase 1, its controlling player may decide to move it away from the ennemy during the move phase (ie flee).
When I'll introduce morale, it may be that the player has no choice but to move away from the ennemy.
As the melee attack happens after the "defensive" fire phase (which is more properly a second range attack phase), it means the units will have losses. For the moment, it will be up to the player to decide if he wants to attack or not.
When morale will be added, there will be a possibility that some units become unavailable for attack. However, they may still be a target of an attack from the ennemy.
However, there is no such thing as "defensive" unit.
In attack phase 1, the resolution of the attack is simultaenous. Then, every units move before the next phase.
So a unit has many losses in attack phase 1, its controlling player may decide to move it away from the ennemy during the move phase (ie flee).
When I'll introduce morale, it may be that the player has no choice but to move away from the ennemy.
As the melee attack happens after the "defensive" fire phase (which is more properly a second range attack phase), it means the units will have losses. For the moment, it will be up to the player to decide if he wants to attack or not.
When morale will be added, there will be a possibility that some units become unavailable for attack. However, they may still be a target of an attack from the ennemy.
Presume factors like surprise, flanking, fortifications, etc would be applied through some kind of attack or defense modifier in your example above ... at some point. Like the methodology as ir allows for tons of flex in game, especially when air, missle, and ship to shore bombardment come into play as tech advances (might need another phase for these???). Good thinin overall.
Similar threads
