Keith and I are taking a break from brainstorming to power-code for a week.

[tigersfan]

* The strategic interface goes away, as do strategic turns.  The citybuilding interface becomes read-only and the AI plays it instead of you doing so.

Um, I'm not so sure how I feel about that. I knew that something had to be done to more smoothly integrate the two parts of the game, especially how both parts really had little bearing on each other and made it feel like two games clumsily glued together. But it seems that removing the part entirely out of your hands seems a bit much.

Is there another posting somewhere that had the discussion and rational leading up to this decision. I'd like to read it.
Also, why not a compromise? Say, for example, a pretty decent AI could run things while you're away, but you can have some limited control if you decide to take time and start using the interface.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, there are multiplayer considerations here, which why I can see why an "out of your hands" approach would be appealing, as then there is no synchronisation to bother with, as it only changes states on the server outside of human interaction. But still, it seems that a less "take part of the game away" approach could be used.

I don't remember exactly where the discussion was, but, if I remember correctly, it came down to, we don't have the time to do it right and do all the other things we need to do to get the game ready for 1.0, and it's better to leave it out than to do it halfway.

* Tiers go away, and the revised model #2 is getting implemented in exchange for that.  New crafting interface goes along with this.

What is revised model #2? Is it buried in another post somewhere?

In any case, you guys are crazy for rearchitectecting like half the game design and still try to keep a frequent update schedule. Keep up the good work.

The "Revised #2" can be found here: http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,9561.0.html . The first post was updated to reflect what's going on.

[Martyn van Buren]

Woah.  I was expecting continents and missions in a month or so.  Go Arcen!

[keith.lamothe]

EDIT: Now that I think about it, there are multiplayer considerations here, which why I can see why an "out of your hands" approach would be appealing, as then there is no synchronisation to bother with, as it only changes states on the server outside of human interaction. But still, it seems that a less "take part of the game away" approach could be used.

MP sync for it is easy (turn-based is very straightforward to sync: everything happens on the server, and the server tells the clients what happened), the reason why we couldn't just leave it as it is is that it's too far from complete and it's not likely that we'll be able to fill it out to the point of not generating endless consternation among players (particularly new ones) because the core game wound up needing a lot more attention than we previously thought.  The strategy/citybuilding stuff also turned out to be a less promising idea than I thought overall.  It's good expansion material if things go well and I have time to rethink it, but I felt that for 1.0 we were on course to wind up with a decent core game and a couple mediocre minigames when what we need is an awesome core game and as many awesome other things (if any) that we can manage.

* Tiers go away, and the revised model #2 is getting implemented in exchange for that.  New crafting interface goes along with this.

What is revised model #2? Is it buried in another post somewhere?[/quote]http://www.arcengames.com/forums/index.php/topic,9561.msg88299.html#msg88299

[x4000]

The other thing about the strategic map and the strategic turns is that the underlying gameplay concepts behind them are actually bring brought MORE to the fore in terms of having hard strategic choices and guiding your civilization and such.  But it's being expressed through the missions.  Check out the brainstorming subforum, it's filled with details on... everything.