Re: What happened to my OCaml projects?

In article <2u2io6F26trm7U1@uni-berlin.de>,
try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname@yahoo.com says...
> Gerry Quinn wrote:
 
>
> I see the 4X TBS genre as a highly analytical AI problem.  Of course, I'm
> planning to improve the genre, not just rehash it.

There are certainly improvements that could be made to the standard Civ-
style AI.  Coordinated use of force being the obvious one.  But assuming
you've solved that, is it really an issue of requiring X amount of
processing time?
 
>
> I'm a designer, not a statistic.  I'm open to concrete discussions about 4
X
> TBS map problems.

If map problems are the only issue, why not make your game on a simpler
map?  What does a complex mapping problem add to gameplay?

> In fact, I'm skeptical that we're working on similar problems.  I know Eri
k
> and Philippa aren't.  You, Gerry, seem to be working more on 'simple game
> design' stuff, rather than 'complex simulationist' stuff.  That's a
> perfectly valid design direction, and many a time I've contemplated bailin
g
> for it.  But my tragic flaw is I remain terribly interested in the design
> problems of 4X TBS games.  That's why I stick to my guns.  It may not be
> profitable right now, but it's what I want out of my work.

It's true that I work on small games - my attitude is that if I finish a
small game I am better placed to write a bigger one!  And I'm good at
thinking of simple ideas for little games.  (That said, my current
project is a bit more elaborate than usual.)

But I have to point out that if you are really interested in the design
problems of 4X games, the obvious step is to model a simple one as a
test-bed for your ideas.  Simple flat map, crude graphics, standard ADM
armies, cities that produce according to a simple scriptable model.
Produce that (there's not a lot of work involved) and you can test out
your AI ideas in code rather than imagining them on paper.

- Gerry Quinn