I've uploaded an early draft of the Core Rulebook, Optional Rulebook and Scenario Handbook for the Standard Map to the archive.

As you can see, I've split the old "Optional Rulebook and Scenario Handbook" in two, one for optional rules, and one for scenarios. The idea is that when Martin finishes his Far East Mapbord the Core rulebook and Optional Rulebook can be used as is, while I'll will write a new "Scenario Handbook for the Far East Map". I'm also thinking of creating a "Scenario Handbook for the Advanced Civilization Map", for those who don't want to print a new map, but use what they already got.

Anyway, in the current 2.09 drafts, the Core Rulebook only contains major changes in section II. (Getting Started), while the other two books contain major changes all over. The associated areas in the Scenario Handbook is based on my proposal in Scenario Handbook Statistics, some more comments on that would be appreciated.
I'm also playing with the PA4 paper size. PA4 paper doesn't exist, but PA4 sized documents will print on both Letter and A4, and thus I'll not have to produce separate PDF files. Please tell me if you have any problems with it.
In the Optional Rulebook and Scenario Handbook I'm also testing a new paragraph numbering scheme. If you like it, I might extend it to the Core Rulebook as well, please tell me what you think.

As always, any comments/corrections/ideas is very welcome,

A second draft of the 2.09 booklets are up in the Archive.

This is the version that I will use at the game I'm hosting at GothCon XXXI on Friday.

The Core Rulebook only got some revised texts. One overall correction might however be controversial, as it breaks with tradition from Advanced Civilization. In this second draft of 2.09 I corrected lots capitalization in the text body. Previous version capitalized quite a lot of terminology, while this draft, according to English standards, only capitalizes proper names (barring all my mistakes).
However, in a few cases I was unsure if something was an proper name or mere terminology. In the end I picked the following as proper names:
The names of commodity, calamity, civilization cards and fields of study, but not the terms "commodity card", "calamity card" and "civilization card".
The Core Rulebook, Optional Rulebook and Scenario Handbook, but not the calamity quick charts, civilization advances quick charts, or civilization advances credit quick charts (note pluralization).
The East and The West (when used as the name of the two trade card blocks), but not the terms "trade card stack" or "trade card block" (btw, I also cleaned up the terminology in this regard: There are two trade card blocks, each consisting of nine trade card stacks. Thus there is no such thing as "the eastern trade card stack" any longer. Instead I use the terminology "the eastern trade card block", or simply refer to it by it's name The East).
The "tracks" was corner cases, but in the end I decided that it was just a census track, rather than a track named The Census Track, while it was a succession track named The Archaeological Succession Track. Opinions on these two cases are very welcome.

The Optional Rulebook was fleshed out, while the Scenario Handbook only had minor corrections (most notably trade card stack => trade card block in the civilization listings).

Finally I'd like to make a plea to the community: Without some input on these new booklets, as well as the changes made in the Core Rulebook, I will not be able to improve them any further, and as this is some major pieces of work they are too large to do on my own. I know there is a lot of people out there who has provided great input on these matters previously, as well as other skilled people reading the forums. I'm only asking you to read and comment on seventeen pages.

A third draft of the 2.09 booklets are up in the Archive.
The Core Rulebook only contains minor fixes, but the other booklets have been fleshed out substantially, and now have the form I intend to release them in. I'd love if someone else would write some introduction texts (both the major introduction texts that is "YET TO BE WRITTEN", as well improved introductions to variants and scenarios). More optional rules, variants and scenarios are also very welcome. One thing missing is a CivProject version of the trade cities variant. Please write any comments in this thread or email me at jonno@civproject.net

Without more input, this will be the versions that'll go final in about a week and a half (in time for the Swedish Championship in Advanced Civilization at LinCon 2006, 27th to 29th of April), so if you want to make some comments, now is the time. I really would like more comments, as this huge update has mostly been a one man work, something I'm not quite comfortable with.

Minor corrections for the "Optional Rulebook":

1.1 Fourth line: Please note...

2.1 ...save an hour...

2.4 ...means 21 rather than 16 unit points...

2.4 Last line: ...does modify...

3.1 Last sentence: The setup stages differ...

4.2.1 All calamities are tradable.

4.2.3 , 4.3.2 and 4.8.2: ...good or bad...

4.7.1 Second line: Once a player reaches 16 unit points, further calamity effects do not....

4.8.2 Third line: ...risks.../ run the risk of becoming
Delete "and cooperatively" or rephrase.

5.2.1.1 Middle part: ...such as Civil War and Civil Disorder become truly devastating to larger civilizations....

5.3.1.1 Second line: ...which make them...

5.3.2.11 Delete one "Disadvantages:"

/Stefan

Thank you very much. All fixed for next version.

I have several suggestions for the rulebooks. First let me say that I so far never played any Civilization board game, so I have a special clean slate perspective

Small things first: Optional Rulebook

I guess that should be 'cities'.


Does not make sense. I guess Broze and Iron should be swapped?

Whole of 5.3.2: Personally I think alphabetical order would be better than AST order, but probably veteran players are better in AST than in alphabetical
Edit: On second thought it may a good idea to provide 5.3.2 in tabular format or on the/alternative player mats.

Core Rulebook

6.21, Table: The table is confusing at first glance. There should be a separation between the two halves (between the Amount and Value Column). Either a double-line or white space.

9.3 should mention the suggestions in the Scenario Book

10.3 is pretty confusing. I suggest adding a table to clear up matters and for quick reference.

12.1, Table: I suggest putting the order in a separate column.

14.3 maks no sense to me. Maybe I've missed something, but 14.2 states population increase is automatic and I found no indication why it should affect other players.

17.522 states that tokens have to embark and disembark in the same turn. I think this is a bit late in the movement explanation process

19 should make especially clear what happens if I have Public Works and more tokens than I need for building the city. Can I keep one beside the city or not? The rules suggest that I cannot, but as the rules are usually elaborate, I think it should be clarified.


Remove the underlined part, it could mean that whenever I have one of these three cards, all my advances count. The second sentence is enough to clarify the situation when I have multiple advances.

28.41 Civil War
I'm sorry to say, but this whole section is a mess for someone not aquainted to the game. For example I have no idea from where to where I need to count areas to identify potential beneficiary civilizations.
Suggestion:

I think this subdivision makes for a clearer layout. Also 28.413 is now step-by-step like, which makes it easier for beginners acting by the rulebook.


This sound a bit clunky. I'd suggest:


28.613 As the rules are pretty elaborate in this regard elsewhere, this paragraph should also say what happens if a victim has less than 3/2 exposed cities.

28.622 What happens if I cannot follow this rule (ie I have reduced everything to one unit and still would need to remove more)?


I'd insert the 'these'. Otherwise it could be read as that he has to remove all of his unit points on the map.

28.714 Does that include unresolved calamities? Probably not, so that should be clarified.

28.815 same thing as 28.322

28.821 Similar to 28.613

28.921 Similar to 28.613


A bit over-complicated. Suggestion:


28.923 Who selects this for the secondary victim? Again the primary one? Clarification needed.

More in a following post.

29.032 Should also note that Famine triggers a new population limit check for the primary victim. Same on the Advancements Quick Chart

I'd also suggest to make a phase sequence summary sheet for beginners, like the table in 12 with a bit more information about each phase (eg "Convert 2/City stock to treasury, Monarchy +1, Coinage +/-1" for the Taxation phase), ie a bit more elaborate than what is on the player mats.

Scenario Book

Make 2.3-2.14 into a table.

Hi, nice with new faces.
Welcome to the CivProject.


You are correct, fixed.


Good catch, fixed.


Actually, it is for consistency. In some places we must list them in A.S.T. order, so we list them in A.S.T. order everywhere.

Tables won't look good for that much information, believe me, I've tried. Alternate playermats is a good idea though, something I'll look into later.


Good idea, I've just made that line twice as thick.


Fixed


Perhaps, I'll look into it.


You are probably right. We have just always done it that way, because that is how Adv Civ did it. I tried it out, but then the table wouldn't fit on the page, so I reverted it to the current behaviour, as that did look better. Will see if I can fix it properly later.


Because if you don't have enough tokens in stock to populate max everywhere you may choose where to populate. And if two neighbours has a strained relationship it will matter if you populate close to the border, or far away.


Well, you should read the whole movement section before starting to move, and it's not as if it's hard to understand once you read it.


Inserted a "all", as you isn't the first to ask, even though it's plainly there. Now it reads:

Will that do?


That interpretation is imho silly, but you are right, we don't need two clarifications that they do stack. Also removed a lot of other "per advance held" and similar wordings.


I replaced 28.412 with

Will this suffice?


Unfortunately this wording implies that the beneficiary may select an additional 20 unit points even when the primary victim holds Philosophy, which isn't the case. If you come up with a better formulation, I'm not above changing it though.

I don't like lumping together the second faction, the choosing of factions, and the effects of Mil/AdvMil/N.War in one heading, like it better now when they all are on an equal level with "The Composition of the First Faction".
AS for being in a step-by-step process, they already are, though there is a trumf (Philosophy), which is a quite ordinary occurrence in any boardgame rules.


This sound a bit clunky. I'd suggest:

Fixed, though I used "during this check" instead of "for this check. The full text is now:



In this regard the rules are not any more explicit elsewhere (compare 28.622 and 528.822). When you can't possibly reduce more, you don't reduce more. The reason Slave Revolt is more explicit is because you otherwise might interpret that tokens coming from reduced cities won't be used for city support until you have fifteen units not supporting cities.


When you can't remove more, you don't remove more. By this point you have zero cities and don't need more beating...


Fixed


Should not, fixed.


Fixed


Won't fix, see above.


Won't fix, see above.


Fixed


These extra cities is selected just like the ordinary ones, why would a clarification be needed?


29.032 is only a calamity reference, already much more detailed than most (such as a typical "29.042 Anatomy reduces the effects of Epidemic (28.623).")


Perhaps, but I see no other interpretation of "Does not work", as without it famine wouldn't be affected by agriculture. Just as with the effects of many other civcards the details of implementation is not listed on the quickchart, only the impact.


No bad idea at all. Nothing I have time for just now (I'm hard pressed getting 2.09 out before LinCon at Friday anyway), but a "Phases Quick Chart" is definitely something I'll look into later.


I tried, it won't look any good.

Thanks


Ok, maybe a real table is not the right thing, but maybe something a bit more tablular/layoutet would look better or work better for reference.
Example:
Minoa
Advantages: - Begins the game with one Ship (which must be placed next to the first token).
(indented) - Ships do not cost maintenance.
(indented) - Astronomy costs is reduced by 40.
Disadvantages: - Minoa now treats the Barbarian Horde calamity as a Corruption calamity.


Suggestion: Use just "AST", "Census" and "Sim.". Explain "Sim." in a legend (like table 6.2) and replace the more complicated orders (22, 24) by numbers (eg '*1' and '*2') also explained in the legend.


Ah, yes. Makes perfect sense. Maybe clarify that:



Yes, that's better. Still I'm inclined to say that adding a sentence to 19.4 wouldn't hurt. "Even if you have Public Works, you still need to replace all tokens with the city marker."


Great! That makes it perfectly clear.


Of course you are right about the beating, but thechnically this case is different from 28.613. In 28.613 you cannot do something because you don't have the required cities. Here you have two stated rules that can contradict each other (621: Remove a total of X units, 622: Leave one in each area), and I think it's mandatory to say which takes precedence if the sh*t hits the fan.


Yeah, I thought that that was the case. The reason I brought it up was that on reading it I thought a big disadvantage sounded like a minor inconvenience. I've read the thread about it here since and got to know that it practically doesn't seem to matter too much.


Of course, take your time. One thing I'd like to add is that if you do it, put the chapter referencens in a separate column. I was a bit confused about the meaning of the numbers at first glance in table 12.1


I'll think about it, maybe I can propose something. Perhaps this could be put into something like a "game setup sheet" together with the information from 10.3.

Not a too bad suggestion,
I've put it on my ToDo list to investigate.


Not very fond of complicated legends. Have a couple of ideas I'd like to try out though, will return to the issue later.


I'd much rather simply rely on §11.2


If I started to include everywhere a civilization card does not change the rules, I'd do nothing else, and the rulebook would become unmanageably thick. No thanks, I'd like to keep the rulebook no thicker than it already is.


Well, technically you are correct, but I read 28.622 as a trumf, that thus has precedence over anything it trumfs. Should perhaps clarify somewhat, will add to my ToDo list.


Feel free to experiment. If what you make looks good, we'll use it for sure.