Civilization: The Expansion Project
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/

CivProject 2.08 Draft - Call for Proofreading
https://dev.civproject.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=377		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Jonno [ 2007-02-03 12:30:34 ]
Post subject:  CivProject 2.08 Draft - Call for Proofreading
Here's the current draft for the next version of CivProject. Focus for this update has been minor fixes and synchronization.

In addition to the usual minor clarifications, the following changes has been made:
Consistent naming of nations: It should now be Kush and Dravidia everywhere (Originally changed for 2.06, but some occurrances was missed).
Better color contrast: Improved the choice of text color (black or white) to improve contrast, and to increase consistency (always the same text color on a given background).
Correct and consistent naming of commodities: Pluralization of commodity names are now slightly more consistent. You'll most likely only notice Papyri and Gemstones.
Consistent AST: AST order changed slightly for 2.07, but only the map was updated. Now the other components have been updated as well.
Trade card stacks: You should now use all available trade cards already with 15 players (instead of first with 16 players).
Library: Library now only gives 40 points of credits towards another simultaneous purchase, instead of 50.

Any proofreading is very welcome, it's far to easy to miss ones own mistakes. As trade cards and counters are generated from brand new templates, I'd especially appreciate proofreading of those. Please post your comments below.

All components (current and drafts) can be found in the archive.
For source files to display correctly, you'll need to install some fonts.
The map is only editable in Illustrator 10, later versions will not work. You can download a 30 days try-out for Windows.
SVG files are best edited in Inkscape, but should also display correctly in Mozilla Firefox 1.5 or later.
XCF and XCF.gz are best edited in The GIMP 2.2 or later.
PSD files are best edited in Photoshop CS2, but should work, sans nested layers, in Photoshop 6 and later. They'll display correctly in The GIMP, but won't be editable.
ODF and ODS files are best edited in OpenOffice.org 2.0.4 or later, or StarOffice 8.0.4 or later, but should also work in any recent office suite, except the one from Micro$oft.

ComponentSourceOther formats
RulebookExpansionRulebook(2.08).odtExpansionRulebook(2.08)-A4.pdf
ExpansionRulebook(2.08)-Letter.pdf
MapboardMapboard(2007-02-03)-Editable.pdfMapboard(2007-02-03)-PrintOptimized.pdf
72dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03).png
150dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-1.png
150dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-2.png
150dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-3.png
Warning: The folowing files are huge, and may cause your browser to crash. They are intended for download, not viewing.
300dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-1.png
300dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-2.png
300dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-3.png
300dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-4.png
300dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-5.png
300dpi/Mapboard(2007-02-03)-6.png
CountersCounters(2006-11-27).svg.zipCounters(2006-11-27).png.zip
PlayermatPlayermats(2006-11-27).xcf.gzPlayermats(2006-11-27).png.zip
Trade CardsCommodities(2006-11-16).psd
Calamities(2007-02-03).psd		TradeCards(2007-03-06)-MarkedCards.png.zip
TradeCards(2007-03-06)-UnmarkedCards.png.zip
Calamity Quick Chart (unchanged)CalamityQuickChart(2.06-fix1).odtCalamityQuickChart(2.06-fix1)-A4.pdf
CalamityQuickChart(2.06-fix1)-Letter.pdf
Civilization CardsCivCards(2.08).psd.zipCivCards(2.08).png.zip
Advances Quick ChartAdvancesQuickChart(2.08).odtAdvancesQuickChart(2.08)-A4.pdf
AdvancesQuickChart(2.08)-Letter.pdf
Credit Calculator (unchanged)CreditCalculator(2.07).odsCreditCalculator(2.07).xls
Credit Quick Chart (unchanged)CreditQuickChart(2.07)-A4.pdf
CreditQuickChart(2.07)-Letter.pdf
Author:  Jonno [ 2007-02-07 1:18:04 ]
Post subject: 
Doesn't anyone have any imput?

If you read some of this, and don't find anything problematic, I'd like to hear that too.
And no error you find is too minor, if you don't tell me, I can't fix them.

Please, could some of you take a look and say what you think.

Regards
- Jonno
Author:  mcbeth [ 2007-02-07 7:39:27 ]
Post subject: 
Sorry, I'm scrambling to get the new map converted/cleaned up.
Author:  mcbeth [ 2007-02-07 15:30:51 ]
Post subject: 
If we are switching away from adjectives and plurals for civ names, we ought to get the Celts while we are at it too. Meaning, the civ probably should be called Celt.

Let me see if my current head list is right. I only see problems with Saba, Hatti, Indus .

Minoa, Minoan Empire, Minoans
Saba, Sabean Empire, Sabeans
Celt, Celtic Empire, Celts
Assyria, Assyrian Empire, Assyrians
Rome, Roman Empire, Romans
Carthage, Carthaginian Empire, Carthaginians
Hellas, Hellenic Empire, Hellenites
Maurya, Mauryan Empire, Mauryans
Dravidia, Dravidian Empire, Dravidians
Kush, Kushan Empire, Kushans
Nubia, Nubian Empire, Nubians
Persia, Persian Empire, Persians
Hatti, Hittic Empire, Hittites
Iberia, Iberian Empire, Iberians
Indus, Indian Empire, Indians
Parthia, Parthian Empire, Parthians
Egypt, Egyptian Empire, Egyptians

Also, I finally have a Maurya token I like
http://broggs.org/~mcbeth/svg/MauryaCounter.svg
Author:  goeran [ 2007-02-07 15:40:27 ]
Post subject: 
Yes, I'm reading it. And now I've actually found one detail to comment. In 10.1 you mention that the number of tokens per player could vary depending on the number of players. It was like that before (47 or 55 tokens) but we had the impression that was removed in the expansion. We played with all 55 tokens when we tried it the other week.

Is that comment a remnant that should be removed? Or did we miss some rules about this somewhere?
Author:  Jonno [ 2007-02-07 17:03:42 ]
Post subject: 
goeran wrote:
Yes, I'm reading it. And now I've actually found one detail to comment. In 10.1 you mention that the number of tokens per player could vary depending on the number of players. It was like that before (47 or 55 tokens) but we had the impression that was removed in the expansion. We played with all 55 tokens when we tried it the other week.

Is that comment a remnant that should be removed? Or did we miss some rules about this somewhere?

All "standard" games use 55 tokens, but some scenarios might not (I'm currently writing one in which the Celts have 60 tokens but only 8 cities, require an extra token to support cities, and draws trade cards as if they had a city more than they actually have. All of this to reflect that they had an important rural culture, but only a limited urban culture, during the timeline of that scenario).
I'm currently not very satisfied with the entire section II (Paragraph 9 and 10) and would like to rewrite those completely, preferably integrating them with paragraph 2.1 and 2.2 from the scenario handbook (starting areas). According to my current plan section II and a semi-final scenario handbook is my main work for 2.09 (as stated above, my main goal with 2.08 is synchronization, stabilization and finish).
Author:  Hammill [ 2007-02-13 14:16:26 ]
Post subject: 
Jonno wrote:

"And no error you find is too minor, if you don't tell me, I can't fix them."

so this is what I've found and some remarks and suggestions are admittedly very minor:

Description of play: 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence "As tile population..."??

1.1A The mapboard does cover India.

1.1H Shouldn't it be mentioned that there is a Scenario handbook.

2.62 Second line: Delete comma after "Early Iron Age".

5.1 Last sentence: shouldn't it be "come" instead of "comes".

6.31 Last sentence: "...trade card stack in which each calamity.." sounds better.

8.2 First sentence: Delete "at a glance" or replace with "quickly"?

9.32 Last sentence: too many "in"'s

10.11 Delete "upcoming" (Scenario Handbook).

18.32 First sentence: Should be "..tokens attack a city,...."

19.1 (Just a remark: We always put city markers upside down and flip them over at the end of the turn. This way we#180;ll know later,avoiding any disputes, which cities should be reduced first if City support is not enough. There's always the risk of a Slave Revolt.)

20.1 I don't understand the last sentence.

26.54 First word should be: "Credit"

26.55 Example:
First sentence: "...planning the purchase of..." or "..planning to purchase both.."

26.56 Third sentence last part: "...but not both of the colors."

27.42 Last sentence "...in the A.S.T. phase."

28.213 Second sentence: "If there are..."

28.214 First sentence: How about: "If the primary victim of an earthquake has Engineering the city is reduced rather than eliminated.
A player holding Engineering is immune to the secondary effects of an earthquake."

28.232 "If the victim..."

28.333 "If the victim...

28.417 Delete last comma.

28.514 First sentence: "...no units on a flood plain..."

28.515 Appearing twice: "food" instead of "flood". (Or we could introduce a new calamity: "poisoned food". Just kidding...)

28.522 "..consist.." (Not sure about this one)

28.523 Last sentence: "...the remaining barbarian tokens are..."

28.5233 "...or units that are attacked..." Delete "that" ?

28.533 "If the victim..."

28.632 End dot.

29.022 "...immune to the protective effects of...

29.041 I don't understand the last sentence.

29.223 Is "In addition to (29.221)" necessary?

29.293 "...to directly..." Reverse the order?

29.472 How about: "...repeat the above step twice asking two more players for the same commodity."

29.492 Isn't there a contradiction in this one?

31.2 Final sentence: "...any commodity cards held...".

/hammill
Author:  Jonno [ 2007-02-14 6:18:34 ]
Post subject: 
Hammill wrote:
Jonno wrote:
And no error you find is too minor, if you don't tell me, I can't fix them.

so this is what I've found and some remarks and suggestions are admittedly very minor:

Description of play: 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence "As tile population..."??

Tile is a term used in other games for roughly what we call an "area". Currently I'm just dropping the word "tile", but better suggestions is welcome.

Hammill wrote:
1.1A The mapboard does cover India.

Oups :oops: I had fixed in the introduction, but forgot in the rules. :x Fixed now.

Hammill wrote:
1.1H Shouldn't it be mentioned that there is a Scenario handbook.

If you mean removing "coming soon": No, not until it's done.

Hammill wrote:
2.62 Second line: Delete comma after "Early Iron Age".

No, "correct" usage of comma before "and" is to use it when enumerating three or more items, but not when enumerating only two items. (That is, "correct" English as taught in school. As I'm not a native speaker, I don't know how it is usually done in the "real world", but if I'm to deviate from the "correct" way of doing it, I'm going to need a damn good reason).
I'm pretty sure about this, as English teachers always bitch about it (we do not use a comma before "och" in Swedish).

Hammill wrote:
5.1 Last sentence: shouldn't it be "come" instead of "comes".

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
6.31 Last sentence: "...trade card stack in which each calamity.." sounds better.

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
8.2 First sentence: Delete "at a glance" or replace with "quickly"?

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
9.32 Last sentence: too many "in"'s

Replaced with "Follow the steps as listed at 9.31 but also shuffling one set of the minor calamities together with the major tradable calamities."

Hammill wrote:
10.11 Delete "upcoming" (Scenario Handbook).

No, as it is still not completed.

Hammill wrote:
18.32 First sentence: Should be "..tokens attack a city,...."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
19.1 (Just a remark: We always put city markers upside down and flip them over at the end of the turn. This way we#180;ll know later,avoiding any disputes, which cities should be reduced first if City support is not enough. There's always the risk of a Slave Revolt.)

Good idea, though I don't think it should be part of the rules.

Hammill wrote:
20.1 I don't understand the last sentence.

Its just a reminder that you don't remove excess population anytime except during that phase. Perhaps written a bit more formal than the rest of the rules, a better formulation is welcome.

Hammill wrote:
26.54 First word should be: "Credit"

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
26.55 Example:
First sentence: "...planning the purchase of..." or "..planning to purchase both.."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
26.56 Third sentence last part: "...but not both of the colors."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
27.42 Last sentence "...in the A.S.T. phase."

No, as I'm not referring to "movement of succession markers" in the "A.S.T." phase, but to the "Movement of Succession Markers on the A.S.T." phase (note capitalization).

Hammill wrote:
28.213 Second sentence: "If there are..."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.214 First sentence: How about "If the primary victim of an earthquake has Engineering the city is reduced rather than eliminated.
A player holding Engineering is immune to the secondary effects of an earthquake."

That would change the calamity (engineering doesn't make you imune to secondary effects). Using just the first sentence, however, is OK.

Hammill wrote:
28.232 "If the victim..."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.333 "If the victim...

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.417 Delete last comma.

No, see my comment to 2.62 above.

Hammill wrote:
28.514 First sentence: "...no units on a flood plain..."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.515 Appearing twice: "food" instead of "flood". (Or we could introduce a new calamity: "poisoned food". Just kidding...)

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.522 "..consist.." (Not sure about this one)

No, as I'm referring to only one "Barbarian Hordes" calamity (as opposed to both "Barbarian Hordes" calamities in the game).
The subject if the sentence is not the "Barbarian Hordes", but the implied "calamity", so changing that would change the meaning of the paragraph, if both Barbarian Hordes calamities would be in play the same turn.
Changed to "Barbarian Hordes consists of 15 barbarian tokens." instead, as a clarification.

Hammill wrote:
28.523 Last sentence: "...the remaining barbarian tokens are..."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.5233 "...or units that are attacked..." Delete "that" ?

Changed to "The barbarian controller has sole authority as to which cities or units to attack, provided he follows the above guidelines."

Hammill wrote:
28.533 "If the victim..."

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
28.632 End dot.

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
29.022 "...immune to the protective effects of...

Fixed

Hammill wrote:
29.041 I don't understand the last sentence.

If the player does not have two cards each with a face value of less than 100 points he will not be able to acquire two cards. If he only have one (dual-)science card costing <100, he will only be able to acquire zero or one card (his option), and if he has none, he will acquire none.
As with 20.1, this sentence might be a bit too formal, a better (but still concise) formulation is welcome.

Hammill wrote:
29.223 Is "In addition to (29.221)" necessary?

No, so fixed.

Hammill wrote:
29.293 "...to directly..." Reverse the order?

Yes, that does sound better. Fixed.

Hammill wrote:
29.472 How about "...repeat the above step twice asking two more players for the same commodity."

no, as that implies he might ask them simultaneously, and thus gaining two cards if both have them.

Hammill wrote:
29.492 Isn't there a contradiction in this one?

No, as he, if he have at least 5 tokens in treasury, may convert all three barbarian tokens in one area, and two out of four barbarian tokens in another. However, if he only have 4 tokens in treasury, he can only convert one of the four tokens in the second area, and all three remaining barbarian tokens remains on the board.

Hammill wrote:
31.2 Final sentence: "...any commodity cards held...".

Fixed
Author:  mcbeth [ 2007-02-14 7:22:19 ]
Post subject: 
"and" and commas when there are at least three items is actually a style thing in English. Both forms are acceptable.

It was yellow, brown, and green.
It was yellow, brown and green.

I personally prefer the first, but there are some style manuals that prefer the second. Most that I have seen do agree that both are correct.
Author:  Hammill [ 2007-02-14 11:09:16 ]
Post subject: 
quote:Originally posted by Hammill
28.214 First sentence: How about "If the primary victim of an earthquake has Engineering the city is reduced rather than eliminated.
A player holding Engineering is immune to the secondary effects of an earthquake."

That would change the calamity (engineering doesn't make you imune to secondary effects). Using just the first sentence, however, is OK.

OK! I was thinking of the "old" A.Civ rule 30.213. However I find this old rule better. Now there is no difference in effect between a player holding Engineering and one who doesn't regarding secondary effects which I think there should be.

/Hammill
Author:  Hammill [ 2007-02-14 17:05:13 ]
Post subject: 
quote:Originally posted by Hammill
20.1 I don't understand the last sentence.

Its just a reminder that you don't remove excess population anytime except during that phase. Perhaps written a bit more formal than the rest of the rules, a better formulation is welcome.

I find the reference to 28.314 quite sufficient, but an alternative last sentence could be: "In this case the benefit of Agriculture is temporarily lost and no areas of the victim may exceed the printed population limit."

/Hammill
Author:  Jonno [ 2007-02-15 1:43:09 ]
Post subject: 
Hammill wrote:
Jonno wrote:
Hammill wrote:
28.214 First sentence: How about: "If the primary victim of an earthquake has Engineering the city is reduced rather than eliminated. A player holding Engineering is immune to the secondary effects of an earthquake."

That would change the calamity (engineering doesn't make you imune to secondary effects). Using just the first sentence, however, is OK.

OK! I was thinking of the "old" A.Civ rule 30.213. However I find this old rule better. Now there is no difference in effect between a player holding Engineering and one who doesn't regarding secondary effects which I think there should be.

Well, Engineering still nullifies the effects of urbanism, so there is a small benefit for the secandary victim as well. In general, however, Engineering is mostly for the primary victim.

Hammill wrote:
Jonno wrote:
Hammill wrote:
20.1 I don't understand the last sentence.

Its just a reminder that you don't remove excess population anytime except during that phase. Perhaps written a bit more formal than the rest of the rules, a better formulation is welcome.

I find the reference to 28.314 quite sufficient, but an alternative last sentence could be: "In this case the benefit of Agriculture is temporarily lost and no areas of the victim may exceed the printed population limit."

Actually, that is the exception to the rule stated in the last sentence of 20.1... The exception is also mentioned in the second last sentence of 20.1, so none thinks there is a contradiction.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/