This thread is for team 1 pre-game discussions.

We should name our team something a bit more imaginative, any ideas?

How do we organize our team?

Do we want to pick a civ or take what comes? Guess that depends a bit on what the "UN" decides, if we have one.

I think we should play as a civ with a strong defense unit, like carthage. the numidian mercenary's 2.3.1. stats will be great for early stages, and save us money on upgrading to pikes. since there will be only 4 civs, 4 teams, an i think no AI war will be definite and one civ will become very strong, and come after us. the mercenary will aid our defenses. also their traits, seafaring and industrious, give us great workers, a great spot for our capital, (seafaring starts you by the sea in most cases) more money for costal cities, and units won't sink easily. we could call ourselves, team Carthage or something like that. Also, I need to say that i'm going to be gone the 17th-30th, going to england but leaving tommorow night so i can get on tommorow.

An agricultural civ is important to have, I think. Sumeria and the Iroquois would be my choices.

As for a team name, only one name comes to my mind: Team Doughnut. :D

Regarding UU choice, which should we position for, a late ancient GA or early middle ages? I tend to think of civs with knight replacement UUs, and/or fast movement.

From the team checklist thread it looks like we should provide a list of top 5 civs in priority order. No more than 3 of the top 5 may be agricultural, and no more than 2 of the top 3. Guess that means a lot of PBEMs are played with Agr civs?

Guess that means a lot of PBEMs are played with Agr civs?
Yes. Agricultural is often regarded as the civ trait. The restriction is to avoid having all four teams' civ choices be Iro/Sumer/Celts (for example).

As for the organization, what if we have a constitutional monarchy? The King, elected at the beginning of the game for an indefinite term, would hold little actual power, but would represent the country at the UN and serves as titular Head of State. The King's term of office ends only with an abdication or perhaps a 'revolution' (losing a referendum with supermajority disapproval). Meanwhile, the Prime Minister, who holds the actual power, is elected for a term of no more than x turns, but can choose to hold elections earlier than that and can be booted from office following a failed vote of confidence, which any citizen could post. There might also be room for a Justice position to interpret our ruleset.

Does this sound like a good idea, or should we go with something different? Keep in mind that we won't have very many citizens, so the number of officials by necessity will have to be low.

@Bootstoots, no offense but I don't really like that idea. it sounds interesting but it would give 2 people power, and the rest as normal citizens. the less citizens we have the more power each one should get. i think each citizen should get assigned to a particular position for a term or for the game. one or two people could nominate or self-nominate citizens and if 2 people want the same position we vote. this allows everyone to have a key role in the game, while spreading power evenly.

I would love to have the Iros (Agricultural and an awesome UU), but other teams will probably want them, so I'm leaning towards Sumeria, whom no one will want a part of early on.

Don't know about the organization.

Please think of, at the very least, a team name and a list of your top 3 civs (only 2 of them can be AGR.)

@Bootstoots, no offense but I don't really like that idea. it sounds interesting but it would give 2 people power, and the rest as normal citizens. the less citizens we have the more power each one should get. i think each citizen should get assigned to a particular position for a term or for the game. one or two people could nominate or self-nominate citizens and if 2 people want the same position we vote. this allows everyone to have a key role in the game, while spreading power evenly.
Okay, that's fine, just a random idea I threw out. So you suggest we create a high number of positions and give everybody one? If so, that may not be a bad idea if everybody stays active, but keep in mind that activity may wax and wane throughout the game as people gain and lose interest. We'll need to make sure the positions aren't set in stone if that's true; otherwise, we'll end up with high amounts of vacant seats.

I've got another idea: what if we play the save as an open succession game of sorts? There would be no positions; whoever gets to the save first posts a "got it" and plays it, sending it on to the next team, subject to rules forbidding one person to hog the save. Important decisions could still be discussed and polled in the forum as usual, the only difference is that anybody can play the save. That way, we'd play the save quickly and there'd be no need for elected positions, making us a direct democracy where all citizens are equal. How does that sound?

I've got another idea: what if we play the save as an open succession game of sorts? There would be no positions; whoever gets to the save first posts a "got it" and plays it, sending it on to the next team, subject to rules forbidding one person to hog the save. Important decisions could still be discussed and polled in the forum as usual, the only difference is that anybody can play the save. That way, we'd play the save quickly and there'd be no need for elected positions, making us a direct democracy where all citizens are equal. How does that sound?

that sounds great. :D Just as long as we disscuss and poll things like a true DemoGame.

that sounds great. :D Just as long as we disscuss and poll things like a true DemoGame.
Certainly, the goal is to be as close to direct democracy as possible. I think, with a small userbase, that this should work well in practice. So what does everybody else think of this idea?

Sounds good to me. :)

Of course, my team name proposal still stands. :D

I'd approve of Team Doughnut. :D

RegentMan is calling for a team vote on the issue of adopting the new rule 0.3.3, which deals with information held by refugees. He has asked each UN representative to take a vote within the spoiler threads and return it to the official poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=123965) within 48 hours, where we can state our country's stance. Since we don't have an official UN rep yet, I would be willing to step in as temporary rep for this decision, if no one objects of course.

Here is the text of the proposed rule:
0.3.3 - Spoiler Info

Description: Upon joining a new team, you are not allowed to give out spoiler info to your new team that the new team you are on would not know about if you had not joined. If you have to give out spoiler info to prove your case, then do not post / vote in the thread.

Verdict: Red (Personal)

Is this acceptable? Please vote yes, no, or abstain within this thread. Once the deadline nears or it appears we have everyone's vote, I will post our decision in the official poll.

Seems reasonable to me.

There are several more polls: SoZ, Difficulty, SGL's, Age/Temp/Weather, Map Size, Barbs, Landform. Please discuss here so one of us can enter a team vote.

My opinions:

SoZ -- no strong thoughts either way. It may not be as killer in PBEM as it is in Epic. The ISDG team had SoZ and got obliterated by the other three teams anyway -- but that's the only PBEM I've seen to completion, all the others have been plagued by others dropping out.

Difficulty -- Emperor seems standard.

SGL's -- On one hand why not some rewards for researching fastest, OTOH random events can make an awfully big difference.

age/temp/weather middle setting for all 3, mapmaker balances so one team isn't stuck with a lot of desert / marsh / jungle / tundra.

Map size -- small

Barbs -- roaming or restless. otoh some don't like the random event nature of goody huts

Landform -- continents or archipeligo, 60 or 70%. Mapmaker balances land tiles available to each team and makes crossings difficult but not impossible.

Newly immigrated citizen, WarDance, checking in. Hello all! :)

I'm not a fan of the SoZ, so I will vote against it.
I would think that difficulty wouldn't really matter, Emperor is fine.
I also vote against SGL's.
Barbarians: I like all or nothing. Raging or none at all.
I agree with Daveshack on the climate, etc. Middle positions are fine.
Map size, small
Lastly my vote is with Continents, 70% water.


And as far as the other referendum goes: "0.3.3 - Spoiler Info
Description: Upon joining a new team, you are not allowed to give out spoiler info to your new team that the new team you are on would not know about if you had not joined. If you have to give out spoiler info to prove your case, then do not post / vote in the thread. Verdict: Red (Personal) "

I vote yes

Here are my votes:

SoZ - no
Difficulty - Emperor
SGL's - yes
Barbs - none
Age/Climate/Temp - all middle
Map size - small
Landform - Continents
Water coverage - 70%
0.3.3 - no (I think it could make the game more interesting and realistic to allow refugees to tell of what their country knew, rather than use a gag order to silence them)

Hi guys, checking in. Nice to see you again, Wardance :)

My prefs (all based on guessing, I have never played human opponents):

A small hand-made or extensively balanced map (this involves more than just giving everyone a similar number of tiles).
No SGL's, no SoZ, no barbs for me.
Middle positions on climate etc.
continents.

This means fairly early contacts, so we need a civ with early UU and possibly increased ability to cross the water.
Iroquois, Celts, Persia, Carthage are all decent. If we expect early combat, then Sumeria, Aztecs, Zulu or Byzantium are ok I think. If late combat, maybe Vikings, China or Dutch.

Maybe we should first decide what strategy we'll use? Early rush, or build-up? Offensive, or defensive? UU choice should depend on that...

I'd be willing to vote for Iroquois, Sumeria, and Carthage in that order. I've seen each of those civs mentioned in this thread, the former two by multiple people, and if agricultural is quite important, it would make sense to list the two agricultural ones at the top.

As for team name, we could be Team Doughnut, as Oct suggested. Perhaps our nation name could be "Doughnutia" or something similar. Unless somebody has a better team name suggestion. ;)

And another new team-member reporting for duty!

I would favor a more organised democracy than previously proposed. I think it´s much more effective if you have 1 turnplayer for a certain number of consecutive turns. This doesn´t mean that someone is less equal than others, someone just has more responsibility. Plus, you can judge the Turnplayer at the end of his term by (not) re-electing him.
I would say to give the president the authority to be representative to the UN, if he wants to. This gives the clearest picture of our team to the others, and the clearest picture of the others to our team.

Team Doughnut sounds fine. I´m ok with that. I´m ok with the countries as well (Iro/Sum/Car)

Have you guys agreed upon Team Doughnut?

And to quote Homer Simpson: "Is there anything doughnuts can't do?"

Team Doughnut is fine with me.

And another new team-member reporting for duty!

I would favor a more organised democracy than previously proposed. I think it´s much more effective if you have 1 turnplayer for a certain number of consecutive turns. This doesn´t mean that someone is less equal than others, someone just has more responsibility. Plus, you can judge the Turnplayer at the end of his term by (not) re-electing him.
I would say to give the president the authority to be representative to the UN, if he wants to. This gives the clearest picture of our team to the others, and the clearest picture of the others to our team.

Team Doughnut sounds fine. I´m ok with that. I´m ok with the countries as well (Iro/Sum/Car)
Why would it be much more effective to have only one turnplayer? If we allow everybody to play the save, that would most certainly be faster, as the first person who saw it could play and send it on without further ado. There may be the potential that we could end up with a bad turn-player, but I'd say it is fairly unlikely that somebody who wasn't very good at the game would attempt to play anyway. Even if that did happen, he would probably be told what he'd done wrong by the other players, making that person a better civ player. And the will of the people must be followed under this system as well; any instructions that the people have given (via discussion and polling) would have to be carried out.

As for equality, this system would make everybody as equal as is possible to make them. You mentioned that the officials have the same amount of power, but more responsibility. However, isn't "more responsibility" just a different way of phrasing "more power"? It seems that the responsibility they gain comes from the fact that they have more power. Under the standard system, the citizens do have the power to elect the president and advisors, but once they're elected, the people don't have the type of direct power that this variant would allow for. They can vote in polls and voice their opinions in discussions, but the final decisions are down to the President and the officials who can instruct him. In this system, we effectively make everybody the President and the advisors, simply by virtue of their being citizens.

Additionally, I think we'll have just the right number of people to make this a reality. A group of (approximately) 6-10 active citizens would make discussion and voting quite possible, while at the same time, it should be small enough that this system wouldn't be at all chaotic. To my knowledge, this is a completely new idea, and I think it'd be quite interesting if we were the first to carry it out and figure out where it went. All the other demogames at this site (including the multi-player ones) have involved a president, x number of advisors, and usually governors and a judiciary. I think this system can work under these conditions, and we really should give it a shot to see where it goes.

Team Doughnut is fine. As long as I don't have to eat one.

List of civs (in this order):
1. Iroquois
2. Celts
3. Persia
4. Vikings
5. Sumer

Iroquois and Celts have good UU's, usable until mid MA at least, so landing on another continent is possible. Both are agricultural. Celts have two serious drawbacks: they are religious and their UU needs iron.
Persia also has a good UU (but needs iron as well). Scientific and Industrious is a decent trait combo.
Viking UU is very strong and needs no resources, but arrives late and is expensive. Seafaring and militaristic is a nice combo. Main drawback is: you have to survive the AA somehow.
Sumer is a mixed bag IMO. Nice traits, and the UU can be effective in early pillaging missions. But with a continents map, early warfare is not so likely. And I don't like defender UU's.

Another mixed bag is Carthage. It's UU is essentially an expensive hoplite, and I think Greece or Sumer would be a better choice if we want to play defensive. Carthages traits (seafaring+industrious) are quite OK though (but the same is true for Greece).

Hi checking in!

Doughnuts sounds great! We should name all our towns after some flavor of a doughnut.

I think Maya actually have the strongest traits with Agr and Ind, they grow very quickly. I don't really care for the UU (javalin 2/2 archer w/enslave wo/defensive shot) though, since i seem to be rather unlucky with them.

As for who gets to actually play the turn, I think it should be whoever can get it out to the next team quickly, as long as they follow whatever plan we have made up. Any kind of decisions that have to be made though, such as war, wonders, trading deals, etc., should be decided as a group.

I think we should setup a government kinda like Civ. It won't mean much early on, but once we start getting multiple cities it will. Think of these as committes and you can be in multiple groups.
Group F1 would gauge growth, terrain improvements and schedule production - they dont pick the builds, just what the order is.
Group F2 works out trade deals and trade routes, including exploration, expansion, and trade buildings.
Group F3 Deals with our military, who to upgrade and where to defend or attack. They decide where barracks and military buildings go.
Group F4 works out treaties and spying
Group F5 does the happiness and culture work. This includes assigning specialists and deciding who needs temples or culture buildings.
Group F6 Works on where to put libraries, picks the best course for science and trys to min/max our output.
Whoever plays is King for the Day.
Our leader keeps everyone in order and makes sure the turn gets played.
This way we can keep up a plan of what needs to be done in some kind of order.

I would like to play with the inclusion of AIs. I am probably alone with this intention, so it`s just for the protocol.
Map size:as big as possible.
SoZ: yes / no ivory / AC
SGL: no
Barbs: Raging, why not
Difficulty: Emperor
A/C/T: 4/normal/temperate
Landform: This is the only thing I really care about. Continents with 4 parties are pretty lame. Will be 2 on each, seperated from the rest for a long time.
Archipel would be cool. 70% water.
Civ: Depending on the landform, no? We might want to be seafaring if it would be archi. Even on conti it could be usefull. Against humans, the seas are important and contested.
0.3.3: No. Refugees bring their knowledge with them. Wars have been won by this in rl, so why not here too?

To all members: be sure to join the Team 1 group in your User CP (http://forums.civfanatics.com/profile.php?do=editusergroups) in order to get access to the private forum (http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=151).

Thread closed; moved to DG 7 forum