***Involving community in design--DEV THREAD ***

Again I'm not singling you out or criticising you in particular. I'm just giving you a little peek behind the curtain of how a designer actually works and what a big deal even small features and suggestions really are (I've posted this before, but for those that have missed it the first part of the article is a really good description of how we have to think www.gamasutra.com/blogs/LizEngland/20140423/216092/quotThe_Door_Problemquot_of_Game_Design.php)

It's not that I am unwilling to explain how the military system works, it's just that I think for you to understand it and get a feel for it you really need to see it in action.

What I would suggest for now is to use the balance file editor to speed the game up for yourself to reach the point where you can use the military settlements and see how they work. This kind of experimentation mens you will be breaking your game a lot and restarting, I would recommend making copies of saves at certain points in your play through so you can return and replay.

I will also look into the feasibility of releasing a build with the dev console enabled on an opt in branch or something that would make testing far easier.

It's a difficult balancing act, while I agree some of the core systems are fundamentally flawed, at this stage it is simply unfeasible to start re-writing the game from the ground up. The sticker and card system is not the way I would have gone, but it's functional so for now it'll have to do. I'll be looking into ways on how to improve the system, but it's not the most pressing issue right now.

When looking at the big picture there is a danger to get overwhelmed by just how much work there needs to be done and become paralysed as a result. Right now I have to be very much in the mindset of breaking up problems into small individual and manageable tasks and working through them methodically. Improvements will come in slow increments not in large overhauls.

Also one of the points of these design feedback threads is to identify which part of the game fundamental systems will need reworking. A full design for the combat system will highlight core mechanic fundamentals which will have to be worked on. At that point I will have to make some decisions on what is feasible and what isn't and which compromises will have to be made etc.

This is a very good point. The problem with the card and stickers mechanic is not the mechanic itself, but it's current implementation and purpose as the tech tree. A knee jerk reaction would be to rip it out and start from scratch when actually as a designer the question that needs asking is "what can be done to improve the mechanic?" or "can we adapt the mechanic to have another more appropriate purpose?". Speaking of your suggestion about followers digging up chests I like it! In fact I like it so much there is a design doc for just that I did about 6 months ago sitting in my big "designs for a rainy day" folder

I completely agree with you.  Back in March, we had a pretty big discussion going on about Cards, stickers, and resource production all-around.  I did a quick dig and found my old thread.  A bunch of people had even better detailed threads than this, but we were talking to a brick wall back then.  My contention was that we weren't likely going to get rid of stickers, for whatever reason wasn't important, but there were ways to provide alternatives to digging up chests of random types.  The big issue is that the current system is completely arbitrary and there is no planning or strategy involved. 

Rather than chests, we could have stickers come from some sort of real-world analog mechanic.  For example, for the wood sticker, there could be a logging camp that would fill up a bar over time based upon whatever factors were developmentally feasible.  When the bar filled, it would provide a sticker and the bar would reset to empty.  It wasn't exactly an optimal idea but it certainly beat the hell out of digging up chests and spinning the wheel of fortune. 

Heck, even digging up chests isn't off the table if the contents made sense rather than randomly generated.  Or, they don't necessarily even need to be chests.  Imagine a tree object that had the same functionality as a chest, but only contained a wood sticker. 

I have been digging (lol. pun unintended) trying to find the thread where someone (possibly Avi) had posted a mockup of a skill-tree design for the cards. Part of that discussion, along with ones like yours and Danjal's, all essentially came to the consensus that the Followers should generate most "sticker" resources through their actions - and to some degree the God's actions could too - and applying them to cards should occur by selective choice (not drag & drop) through some kind of progression or even check boxes.

Heck, even Peter eventually said we'd get a skill/tech-tree for the cards... but like so many other promises, that has never manifested.
I'm afraid so. Although Avi's last Godus post was in December, s/he hadn't been very involved since late Spring last year. It's a shame that 22cans manages to run off pretty much every creative and enthusiastic player that came along; why we hang around after all this is still beyond me (I ask myself every week).

Possibly I should have put my last two posts under "God Powers" in this thread. As FuriousMoo stated this is not in essence a combat game. This got me thinking that combat should happen in a context that is more than a mini game but less than the entire game. Linked to the main game and with consequences in the main game but also separate and somewhat optional. As I stated in the God Powers thread:

"Why not make combat in Godus half way between real time in world and a mini game? For example, once in a while have a window pop up saying something like, "Threats and incursions have been reported on your eastern border. How would you like to respond? A.) these minor annoyances happen all the time. Ignore it! Or B.) I will brook no disrespect of my divinity! Send forth the troops! This is step one; giving the player the option to play at war or not. Hey, maybe the player is busy at work or school. If the player picks A nothing more happens. If the player picks B the engagement begins. The way I see it a "real world" segment of the realm would be a stake. Perhaps a piece the size of one of the beacon expansion zones. Possible the exact same expansion zone areas, why reprogram or rethink that? So, make it clear in some fashion the zone at stake (to lose or gain) and if the player gives the final okay to engage the enemy switch to the combat screen. The combat screen could easily consist of generic depictions of different terrain types. For example: mountainous/mining terrain, verdant/farmland terrain, desert or seashore terrain, etc.. I would use an overhead view quite similar to the original game here to keep a visual sense of continuity. I still like my idea of having Follower troops rally around one or two heroes who create "battle belief" which is completely apart from regular domain belief (see above). If the player and his/her Followers prevail in combat all that will be left of the enemy's (beacon of expansion) area ( in the real world) will be some ruins of the former dwellings devoid of any enemy tribe. Now the player can expand into the new territory. Meanwhile, players who chose A might see one or two Followers with arrows in them (for effect and to tie things together) but things basically continue as usual. But they cannot expand their territory. This is just the bare bones concept but I think it could work well. The specifics of the combat implementation could be discussed on this thread. To bring this full circle, God powers would be limited easily within the context of the separate semi mini game and separate belief meter used within it. If the player is so inept as to lose the battle, well, they lose a chunk of their original territory. Not for the faint of heart.

One more thought. You could grey out the area where the enemy was defeated and require players to work on a previously unreachable beacon in order to expand in to the new territory which is now devoid of enemies. In the meantime the player has a buffer against enemy incursions from that area of their domain."

It would also be nice if there was a cerebral, puzzle or expense workaround to expand into new territory without using the combat process. Perhaps it would be far slower but less risky. Or maybe it would be something as simple as paying a "ransom" in ore and wheat etc. to the belligerent tribe in order to get them to move on out of the territory so you can be left alone and also expand in to the new region. Some players might opt for combat on one occasion and paying a settlement to the warlike tribe when they're flush with resources.

As I mentioned in the God Powers thread there could be visual links between the combat game and the main game such as warlike tribesmen making cat calls and throwing things on the border in question within the main game.

With this kind of a solution there would be no need for various soldier "settlements" or any big changes within the game itself. If the player accepts the combat option he or she would simply see so many archers, so many foot soldiers, etc. arrayed before him ready to play the combat game against the enemy. They would look just like Followers but perhaps with tunics and weapons. You could simply delete as many as are lost from the general population. Players would simply, logically conclude the soldiers came from the general population.

Problems within the programming of the main game could be addressed separately and at your leisure, I would think. As long as the combat game really looks like the larger game but at a different height or angle people ought to respond to it as an extension of the same reality and not some silly mini game. Many other ideas could continue to be implemented over time in the larger game realm as are mentioned by several people here.

If for any reason this approach is not feasible please let me know and I won't spend any more time thinking about it or posting in regard to it.

Thanks for this thread.

It should have been sandbox as you say. I still think it could survive without multiplayer as long as the creative/sandbox element was strong.

So FuriousMoo, has/will the media shitstorm had/have any impact on your plans of having the community aid in the design?

That maybe true but it wasn't us who wrote the articles or quotes. Moo also sounds busy, would be good to hear from him again, plus if we burned the bridges it hasn't stopped raspofabs interaction. Maybe he like to swim the rivers rather than cross the bridges "there be trolls under those bridges"