Yes, hunting (as well as other complex actions) would be broken into numerous skills such as archery (yes, they had bows in this time period), slinging, spear throwing (javelin throwing?), spear melee, clubs, trapping,... There would also be indirectly useful skills for hunting such as tracking and stalking (stealth). I've even pondered throwing in wind as another factor to be considered in hunt, but I'm afraid that this would be too much to micromanage. I'd also like to incorporate a very popular hunting method of the time - driving mammoths off a cliff with clever use of fire.

Sadly, there won't be a development journal any time soon because I'm not just skilled enough to pull this off. I don't think I'll be any time soon as my current skills are limited to basic C and SDL. I predict it will take me five or six years to get good enough at programming to pull off this project. I am considering, however, making this an open-source project once I start it because it seems like too much work for one man (I'll probably lose contact with my Uni friends in a year or two). BTW, if anyone wants to nick my idea you're welcome to do it, as long as I get a free copy of the game and lifetime subscription :p I'll even do some programming grunt work. And I was wondering if anyone would notice that pun :D

Those are some very nice ideas, Edtharan. I did plan to have teaching, but that's all I planned. Your ideas seem like they would work well with this game. The only thing I'd change would be how new inventions are made. I'd make it a very rare event and this would make technology another thing to trade and would further encourage players to peacefully interact with eachother. On the other hand, you might just steal another tribe's item and have your best craftsmen attempt to reverse engineer it.

The family trees system does the job as well as genetics system when it comes to hereditary diseases, but it seems to me that it wouldn't do that well when it comes to inheriting talents (affinity towards particular skills) and abilities (strength, intelligence etc.). Sure, I could use the parents' abilities and use the average value, but that would make my genetics Lamarckist because abilities of characters would change during their lifetime depending on their behaviour. I'm not envisioning anything too complex, though, a double set of "genes" behaving according to Mendel's laws of inheritance would do.

Your thoughts about travel times have given me an awesome idea on how to handle offline players being attacked. It has already been said that OGame's "early warning system" lets players minimize the damage done by raiders. Similarly to this, you could send patrols to spot any would-be attackers and send smoke signals to warn their tribe. This would mean that catching an opponent by suprise would still be possible, but if your tribe's location has few access routs it would be very hard to pull off. Granted, a player that doesn't log in frequently wouldn't benefit much from this unless you could set contingency plans for your tribe (if attacked then retreat to this cave) but I'm not sure if this would be too much automatization. And, as you've pointed out, attacking other players won't be all that common because it wouldn't be worth it much of the time. Still, a surgical raid on a player that has large supplies and has sent all of his men out to hunt could be a profitable move, as long as you can afford to be shunned by that player and aren't afraid of retaliation. This would mean that an aggressive style may lead to quick progress (some may even specialize their entire tribe for combat and consequently become totally reliant on raiding/conquering) but would also be extremely risky.

Well, I'm not writing a proper design document because I'm not sure what such documents would consist of. I'm currently writing my first real game (ie not a pong or tetris clone) and I'm basically designing as I go. Sure, I have to rewrite stuff all the time, but I'm learning a lot this way. Anyway, as far as your points are concerned:
1. I guess skills could be grouped pretty much how you proposed, and I'm also thinking that there should be some sort of synergy between skills (for example being good at archery makes you good at judging distance so you get a small bonus to javelin throwing). I'm dead-set on not having any spells in this game because it would break game immersion as my goal is to make a game that is as historically accurate as it can get without compromising the fun factor. Healing would boil down to herbalism and trauma treatment (putting broken limbs into splints). I am unsure whether I should include some rituals to enhance healing (and perhaps even other stuff - hunting for example). Sure, they most certainly work in real word (psychosomaticaly) but they reek of magic.
2. Buildings wouldn't do anything on their own. They're basically just a shelter from elements, much like caves. I'm thinking that a modular construction system (like in Sims) would work well with this game.
3. It wouldn't be all that easy to stock up enough resources. As your tribe grows so do it's needs, and the amount of resources is limited. I'm envisioning extending the reproduction system to animals and plants, with a small trickle of them coming from the edges of the map to avoid mass extinction of species. Still it should be possible to drive species to extinction in local areas, so wise use of resources would be needed, as well as seasonal migration unless you find a good spot for agriculture (they had it back then, but it wasn't very efficient and it won't be very efficient in game, either).
4. Trade of resources and of technology would be the cornerstone of diplomacy, but the most important thing would probably be "trade" of people via marriage (dowries would most likely be paid) to ensure healthy genes in a tribe. There would also be the need for tribes to work together on a common goal from time to time, such as two small tribes going on a mammoth hunt together. Still, I realize that this is the portion of the game that needs most work, but I'm just out of ideas at the moment (I'll probably come up with something while I sleep).
5. Well, it'd be fairly common to run into an occupied cave (most likely by a gigantic cave bear) that needs clearing. The animals would be more than pestering - you should think twice before messing with a pride of cave lions - and it might not be very smart to send lone hunters into unknown areas. What I'm also having in mind is seasonal migration of animals such as mammoth or giant elk (these migrations played a HUGE role in lives of our ancestors) so that some animals could be available only at certain times of year (good luck stocking up enough salted rabbits to get through the winter if you miss the elk migration). Speaking of which, seasons would play a huge role because they would determine availability of many resources, especially fruit and berries. I'm not sure how long a year should last, but I'm guessing that a couple of real-world days would be the optimum.

That's it for now, and keep those comments coming. You've given me a lot of food for thought and a bunch of awesome ideas. Thanks.

*edit* I forgot to say how happy I am that there is this much interest for my idea. I'm well-aware that most of the ideas that sound cool to to the guy who comes up with them aren't nearly as entertaining for the general populace. But now it seems to me that people would actually play this game if it was made (a 100 regular players would be a resounding success to me). Thanks, guys, and don't be shy to point out the parts of my concept that seem boring to you - I'm not in position to be objective about it.

Idea: In most nomad societies once a group gets too large the fission (split into two groups that move apart). Usially its becaise their are too many people for the local area to support or internal arguments make splitting the better alternative to killing each other. There usually are close ties between the groups. One player sould control more than one such group if they have grown that much in population to be able to split.


You mention having a trickle of animals coming on the edge of the map to help fill depletions. You could do the same with individuals (computer run) that often would be accepted into undersize groups as 'new blood' (especially if they have needed skills).


You mention not wanting spells, but actually this is one case where a limited application would work. A Shaman dealt with the spirit-world and aspects of living that people didnt have control of. They could greatly effect the well being of the members of their group (and others) psychologically. Anxiety and fear can have real results on people and controlling those was a significant task. Ceremonies and spells and other convincing actions (like counselling) should modify your peoples psycho attributes. Psychoactive plants played a large roll - more skills and knowledge.... (Plants as medicine was a broad set of knowhow as well.)

I'm not quite sure if having the players control multiple tribes would be a good idea, mainly due to manageability reasons. However, the idea of tribes splitting has started a whole new train of thought in my head. What if tribes split not only when there wasn't enough food to go around, but also when your people were otherwise unhappy with your leadership? This would be somewhat similar to Tropico's happiness system and it could also be influenced by "politics" (less work means more happiness but also less productivity), religion (reckless exploitation of natural resources may make villagers think that the spirits are unhappy) and availability of luxury items (shellfish jewelry, for example), as well as by availability of basic life necessities such as food (varied diet contributes to both happiness and health), water and shelter from elements. Anyway, when the number of disgruntled tribesmen reaches a critical mass they would leave your tribe and strike out on their own (nobody is insane enough to leave the safety of tribe and live all alone). These splinter tribes would be controlled by computer and would "emigrate" after a while (ie they would leave the map by walking over it's edge), but while they're there they could serve as starting tribes for new players (some heavy game balancing would be needed to achieve this) because that would make the game a bit more credible than having entire tribes appear out of thin air (this would still be possible, though, because we can't really rely on splinter tribes being available all the time).

I think that some individuals from these splinter groups may decide to join another tribe, and there ought to be a trickle of individuals (hermits?) to help tribes that are in bad shape (been massacred by an enemy or something), just as you suggested (nice idea, BTW). Still, it doesn't make much sense for people to join weak tribes over strong tribes. And overdoing this may downplay the importance of people as a resource too much, which would inevitably lead to a much more aggressive type of game. I guess it can be all done, but would have to be balanced with extreme care.

Thinking again about it, I think you're right about having "magic" in game. It's very much in spirit of the game and would add to game immersion if pulled off properly. I think that a subtle "magic" system, such as one seen in UnReal World would fit just fine (there is other interesting stuff in that game, BTW). That is, you would have no way of knowing what exactly did you get out of a ritual (probably a bonus of unknown numerical value to RNG rolls) or even if it worked at all which makes it a bit more mysterious and realistic. That being said, there would be no such thing as instant heal spells - rituals would merely improve the chances of recovery (which takes an amount of time dependant on disease).

As for the diplomacy system, the best idea I could come up with is to replicate the politics of pre-Columbian America, focusing mainly on plains Indians, but also keeping open the option to "go Aztec". Sadly, I'm not very well-versed on this subject so I'll need to read a book or three about it (does anyone know any good online resources?).

I'm sorry, but it seems to me that most of those ideas wouldn't work well with this style of gameplay.

The idea about private games does have some merit. However, having the game hosted on on a client computer can't be done in such long-term games (well, it can, but it'll be very frustrating waiting for host to go online). That being said, allowing players to set up their own shards (there ought to be a minimum number of players needed, though, to save server space and processing player) would work very well in thwarting grievers. Perhaps the players could get invitation upon proving themselves on the public server (that is, proving themselves to be mature players, not achieving some arbitrary level of in-game development) to join a private shard. Maybe it would even be a good idea to allow them to "migrate", that is to transport their entire tribe from the public shard to a private one. I'm not sure yet, I'd have to see it in action.

Resource quality and genetics are integral parts of gameplay and are extremely important. They serve to encourage peaceful interaction between tribes, which is the central idea of the game. Genetics are especially important for reasons explained in my previous posts. It wouldn't be too much to manage, though, because much of it would be automated and you wouldn't actually be able to see your people's genes but only their phenotype.

As for diseases, I didn't plan to have them as random events. I now realize that I was very vague in that regard, but I just tend to get carried away while writing and forget that people can't read my mind. Diseases would be divided into two groups: hereditary and acquired. Hereditary diseases have already been explained. Acquired diseases would range from broken bones to cold (or even pneumonia) and would all be consequences of in-game behaviour of the people (they could get injured in a hunt or get pneumonia from walking in heavy rain for long time). While various transferable diseases would add to realism they would also be capable of crippling entire tribes and would thus make luck too big a factor in the game. Nothing sucks more than losing because of a stroke of bad luck.

The 1 year = 1 minute suggestion is a big no-no. It would make it impossible to simulate passage of seasons in a meaningful manner, and seasons should play a pivotal role in a game about life of prehistoric humans. Our ancestors' lifestyle was dictated by migrations of herds of large herbivores. I assume that your biggest concern is that it would take too long for children to become useful, but keep in mind that this isn't 21st century and child labour is the norm. Besides, I think that one of neanderthals' bonuses should be a shorter reproduction cycle (I'll have to doublecheck this, though), which means that their children would grow up even faster.

Anyway, I've been thinking a lot about this game in the past few days and I've reached conclusion that this could be pulled off as a 2D isometric single-player game. Granted, much of it's appeal would be lost because I don't think it's possible to pull off a good diplomacy system when AI is on the other end of negotiating table, but it could still be a fun game. If I were to go this route I could start working on this game as soon as I finish my current game in about six months or so. It will take me lots of time (about three years, I'm guessing) if I fail to find like-minded enthusiasts, but it will be a good learning experience and would look good on my resume. And I see no reason why I couldn't make a MMORTS sequel after that because I'd have a solid base and would be taken more seriously by would-be co-developers.

*edit*
Sorry, double-post. These SQL errors are driving me mad >:(

just had quick thought on your generics and the wanders/hermits joining tribes.
u could use this to introduce more/rare genetics in as the game goes on

Quote:Original post by DJ14IVI3
I'm not quite sure if having the players control multiple tribes would be a good idea, mainly due to manageability reasons. However, the idea of tribes splitting has started a whole new train of thought in my head. What if tribes split not only when there wasn't enough food to go around, but also when your people were otherwise unhappy with your leadership? This would be somewhat similar to Tropico's happiness system and it could also be influenced by "politics" (less work means more happiness but also less productivity), religion (reckless exploitation of natural resources may make villagers think that the spirits are unhappy)

People didnt have the resources/tools to recklessly expoit much. Bad decisions leading to accidents or lack of sustenance would be more like it.
Also the larger the group was the more likelihood of friction/personal conflicts happen (Bushmen (San) started killing each other when they were forced by government to settled down and couldnt move away from each other when disputes happened...)

Food resources was the primary reason -- with too many people the 'gatherers' start having to spend too much time walking everyday to get to foodstuffs.

Quote:

and availability of luxury items (shellfish jewelry, for example), as well as by availability of basic life necessities such as food (varied diet contributes to both happiness and health), water and shelter from elements. Anyway, when the number of disgruntled tribesmen reaches a critical mass they would leave your tribe and strike out on their own (nobody is insane enough to leave the safety of tribe and live all alone). These splinter tribes would be controlled by computer and would "emigrate" after a while (ie they would leave the map by walking over it's edge), but while they're there they could serve as starting tribes for new players (some heavy game balancing would be needed to achieve this) because that would make the game a bit more credible than having entire tribes appear out of thin air (this would still be possible, though, because we can't really rely on splinter tribes being available all the time).

I think that some individuals from these splinter groups may decide to join another tribe, and there ought to be a trickle of individuals (hermits?) to help tribes that are in bad shape (been massacred by an enemy or something), just as you suggested (nice idea, BTW). Still, it doesn't make much sense for people to join weak tribes over strong tribes. And overdoing this may downplay the importance of people as a resource too much, which would inevitably lead to a much more aggressive type of game. I guess it can be all done, but would have to be balanced with extreme care.

The individuals were not 'hermits'. You had to seek a mate outside of your group and after a while the nearby groups were relatives too. Individuals would thus have to travel quite far (especially if nomads covering a large range of territory). Also, if frictions developed in a group and it was too small to fission, then individuals would leave. Small group might be remnants of groups that failed and seek another group to join closer to the critical mass nessessary to survive. Fostering might also be a societal mechanism when one group is a bit too large or they want to acquire skills from a related group who has a expert (apprentissing).

Quote:
Thinking again about it, I think you're right about having "magic" in game. It's very much in spirit of the game and would add to game immersion if pulled off properly. I think that a subtle "magic" system, such as one seen in UnReal World would fit just fine (there is other interesting stuff in that game, BTW). That is, you would have no way of knowing what exactly did you get out of a ritual (probably a bonus of unknown numerical value to RNG rolls) or even if it worked at all which makes it a bit more mysterious and realistic. That being said, there would be no such thing as instant heal spells - rituals would merely improve the chances of recovery (which takes an amount of time dependant on disease).

A Shaman would have alot of psychological tricks (and probably understandings of medicines of many kinds and other treatments). Depending on your time scale, it might look like a magic result (with a system of possible failure that some game systems have). There would be definite shift in odds with the treatment (real or placebo). Morale can be a strong factor, and part of the Shaman's job was to relieve fear and anxiety about unknowns.

Quote:
As for the diplomacy system, the best idea I could come up with is to replicate the politics of pre-Columbian America, focusing mainly on plains Indians, but also keeping open the option to "go Aztec". Sadly, I'm not very well-versed on this subject so I'll need to read a book or three about it (does anyone know any good online resources?).

The era you specified (Maglemosian) was before the agricultural revolution (I googled it and read the later cultural groups that followed).
That was far from the societies of the plains Indians and doubly for 'aztecs' who built their empire ontop of 3000+ years of agricultural and technological developments of their predecessors.

Diplomacy was likely based on family connections and a basic reality that it is easier to move than to compete (and fighting too risky). The people who had a good resource probably were stronger, thus dissuading others from trying to move in on them unless some catastrophe struck (and then likely they could call in relatives to hold onto it).


However your mechanism works, you will have to do test models and tune it to find a reasonable critical mass for your groups -- too large and the 'gatherers' can find enough closeby -- too small and the 'hunters' dont have enough men to hunt large animals effectively. THe balance is needed in the game to restrict the players (else they will have too many free people to get into trouble with and not represent the type of game situation you want). You have to balance over a large number of factors, you will probably have a chance to develope the computer-run group mechanism along the way to help with the testing.

When I mentioned overexploitation of natural resources, I mainly had in mind overhunting. But now that I think about it again I see that you're right. You also offer a nice and logical explanation as to why would individuals join smaller tribes over larger tribes. Speaking of which, your ideas about transfer of people between tribes are also quite awesome.

Anyway, what originaly sparked my interest in stone age was Jean Auel's Earth's Children series. I'm well aware that it's no history book, but I was wondering how realistic was the plot about the two brothers leaving their tribe on a coming-of-age voyage. If it is credible, it might be a good explanation for the lone characters coming to the map (as you seem to suggest). It would also create another fun thing to do - sending your own men on such voyages. This would esentially mean losing that tribe member for a while (perhaps even a couple of years) but could get you in return a new tribe member (wife from abroad) and perhaps even new technology (small chance). Offcourse, there is always the posibility that the tribe member never returns (because of joining another tribe or simply getting killed).

You have some nice ideas on religion, too. Anyway, after further consideration, I've concluded that the only way to influence the spirits (and people perceived relationship with them) would be sacrifice, especialy after events such as a good hunt.

Upon further reasearch on Wikipedia, I've concluded that you're absolutely right. I've mistakengly thought that Maglemosian culture appeared cca 9500 BC, and I stand corrected. Unfortunately, this means that it is ill-suited for my game. I think that mammoths are a very important thing to have in this game because of their iconographic value. This means that I have to move the game's timeframe back to late Wurm period (beggining of deglaciation would probably work best) and choose a different culture to base the game around. What upper paleolithic culture would you recomend me?

As for politics, I was refering to interaction between tribes, not internal political organization (I should really stop being so ambigious). I'm aware that these things are unsepparable, but it looks as if I need to deviate from history and introduce more complex relations between tribes inn order to hav interesting gameplay. It has been pointed out that the game might be boring for majority of players if military conflict is unsupported by the game. I am a fan of accuracy, but I am of opinion that it comes secondary to the fun factor of a game.

All in all, you offered some awesome insight and I appreciate it. You have confirmed my suspicion that I'd need to find an anthropologist (or an anthropology major) to serve as advisor if I were to make this game. Thanks for your input.

Quote:Original post by DJ14IVI3
When I mentioned overexploitation of natural resources, I mainly had in mind overhunting. But now that I think about it again I see that you're right. You also offer a nice and logical explanation as to why would individuals join smaller tribes over larger tribes. Speaking of which, your ideas about transfer of people between tribes are also quite awesome.

Anyway, what originaly sparked my interest in stone age was Jean Auel's Earth's Children series. I'm well aware that it's no history book, but I was wondering how realistic was the plot about the two brothers leaving their tribe on a coming-of-age voyage. If it is credible, it might be a good explanation for the lone characters coming to the map (as you seem to suggest). It would also create another fun thing to do - sending your own men on such voyages. This would esentially mean losing that tribe member for a while (perhaps even a couple of years) but could get you in return a new tribe member (wife from abroad) and perhaps even new technology (small chance). Offcourse, there is always the posibility that the tribe member never returns (because of joining another tribe or simply getting killed).

Auel actually did alot of research for here books, but much of it is also conjecture and things to facilitate the plot.
If your group growed beyond the 'critical mass' it would be one way of getting rid (for a while) of excess population and its possible that the communications
with more distant was an advance that helped accelerate the spread of new technologies and access to rare materials (both important survival factors).

Quote:
You have some nice ideas on religion, too. Anyway, after further consideration, I've concluded that the only way to influence the spirits (and people perceived relationship with them) would be sacrifice, especialy after events such as a good hunt.

Ceremonies didnt have to have 'sacrifice', but would be expressions of respect for the 'spirits' involved (and you dont want them to turn on you). Likewise the spirits of dead humans would have to be placated.

Quote:
Upon further reasearch on Wikipedia, I've concluded that you're absolutely right. I've mistakengly thought that Maglemosian culture appeared cca 9500 BC, and I stand corrected. Unfortunately, this means that it is ill-suited for my game. I think that mammoths are a very important thing to have in this game because of their iconographic value. This means that I have to move the game's timeframe back to late Wurm period (beggining of deglaciation would probably work best) and choose a different culture to base the game around. What upper paleolithic culture would you recomend me?

Large animals existed at later times too that might take the place of the mammoth. Aurochs (huge wild cattle) could be just as dangerous (were still around in Roman times in places like Germania).

Quote:
As for politics, I was refering to interaction between tribes, not internal political organization (I should really stop being so ambigious). I'm aware that these things are unsepparable, but it looks as if I need to deviate from history and introduce more complex relations between tribes inn order to have interesting gameplay. It has been pointed out that the game might be boring for majority of players if military conflict is unsupported by the game. I am a fan of accuracy, but I am of opinion that it comes secondary to the fun factor of a game.

All in all, you offered some awesome insight and I appreciate it. You have confirmed my suspicion that I'd need to find an anthropologist (or an anthropology major) to serve as advisor if I were to make this game. Thanks for your input.

The problem is that groups at that period or earlier were quite far apart and the total populations were low. Interactions would be few and far between generally. Maybe if you located in an area with good (reliable) resources so that population densities would be higher (and groups in closer proximities).
That would also be more likely in later periods when agriculture was starting (or becoming alot more prevelant).