OK, here's the scoop. A majority of us wanted to play 5BC, in a vote taken back a couple of weeks ago. I have no qualms about that as a point-in-time decision, however the "Ravensfire" version of the constitution puts the 5BC right there at the top, as Article C. That version also requires a 67% majority to change it.

Fine, we don't want to be changing the game style left and right -- but think a little about what this means. Suppose there are 30 of us playing. I can name, without really trying very hard, 10 people who I think will automatically vote no on removing 5BC, no matter what the in-game circumstances, no matter what the state of the out of game experience. We could end up being in excruciating pain playing an unwinnable game, or at least one which cannot be won within this restriction.

Don't misunderstand my intent here. I voted in favor of the 5BC game style and still believe it is the way to start the game. It will probably work out OK. If it is going OK then the pro-5BC movement, myself included, has nothing to fear because people won't want to change it. I'll be honest too, when I have games where I reach the Middle Ages with no saltpeter and behind in units, or Industrial with no coal and can't buy any with all my resources and all my GPT, I quit and start a new game rather than endure the actual loss. Will this happen? Probably not, but don't stand around in front of the crowd if it does.

I ask you, straight up: should this provision be in the Constitution, where it almost certainly can never be changed because of that block vote against any such change, or should it go in the CoL where it is still hard to change but not insurmountable, or should it not be in the law at all?

I say put it in the CoL if it has to be written somewhere. We should not be entering into suicide pacts which could result in a game which isn't fun for anyone.

I dont beleve we should have a 5BC in the constitution. Unless we want to make a comitment to the play style and stick with it and not change it mid game like we did in the last demogame.

No, it should not. That is an element of gameplay, and should not be included inside of the constitution.

yes, of course....
if not it will not last, we cannot change variants
and I for one don't care if we lose...

Losing could be fun for once...it like trying to stay above the water and then a wave crash on us and we drown. That a lot of fun, virtually.

Not in the Const. I have to agree here. Though this may be our last game, we still don't need to encode our playstyle into the Const. The CoL, yeah.

And loosing would be kinda cool...ish.

If its not in the constitution and is in the CoL, I am sure someone will find a way to build more than 5 cities based on the fact that the Constitution trumps the CoL...
For example, It could be argued since Governors may choose where a city is built, and we have 6 governors, a sixth city could be built...

If its not in the constitution and is in the CoL, I am sure someone will find a way to build more than 5 cities based on the fact that the Constitution trumps the CoL...
For example, It could be argued since Governors may choose where a city is built, and we have 6 governors, a sixth city could be built...

i thought the 6th governor will be governing captured cities. at least that's what i thought i read.

i thought the 6th governor will be governing captured cities. at least that's what i thought i read.
yes, but if we don't specify that we can't build another city, then we can't stop governor 6... the Code of Laws is beneath the constitution, thus anything contradicting between the two, the constitution wins.... basically the CoL can't limit governors actions, as they are already defined in the constitution, so putting that segment in the CoL does us no good... It must be in the constitution

it is complicated, but someone not wishing to play this variant could take advantage of it in a JR...

There is not much point in playing a variant if you only stick to it when it's easy, is there?

So variant rules should not be amendable, and belong in some supraconstitutional ruleset, together with rules on not reloading, not editing the savefile, etc, etc. If we don't have nonamendable rules, then the constitution is the next best thing I guess...

The constitution did not specify how many Governors we can have. So if we only have 5 cities, it not possible to have a sixth governor. So the CoL can specify that we can only have 5 governors and a sixth for any one city we capture and keep.

The constitution did not specify how many Governors we can have. So if we only have 5 cities, it not possible to have a sixth governor. So the CoL can specify that we can only have 5 governors and a sixth for any one city we capture and keep.
I was referencing to ravenfires constitution

I was referencing to ravenfires constitution

I see. I took a peek and noticed that ravenfires specify that we can only build 5 cities and take 1 from each enemy.

If Article C from Ravensfire's proposal were in the CoL instead it would still have the same effect.

My position is that this kind of thing doesn't belong in the law at all. In-game decisions need to be made using the process for making in-game decisions -- the WOTP at any given point in time should always be the ruling factor.

We have a nice solid majority who want to play 5BC right now. That same majority should have the same power 2 months from now as they have right now. To do otherwise takes away the meaning of being a citizen. Forcing people to continue on the same course is exactly the same thing as it would have been if I'd said that Strider's attempt to get rid of strategic / tactical in DG6 had to pass 2/3 majority. I had enough conviction that the people would do the right thing that I pushed for the majority rule on amendments in DG6, knowing that it would make it easier to nullify the very thing that I was advocating. I'm only asking for the same respect for the majority to be shown in this game.

The requirement need not be specifically mentioned - I think, as pointed out above, that raven's proposal covers it handily. I don't think it will kill anyone, though, to go ahead and mention the restriction in the constitution. This document is one that will be referenced by those who are new to the game, and explicitly stated the variant there would reduce confusion. Besides, one other key game-play element, the turnchat, is already in the document of all three proposals.

5bc should not be in the constition. that way if it doesn't work we dont have to continue with it.

5bc should not be in the constition. that way if it doesn't work we dont have to continue with it.
Wel what is the point of even starting with this challenge, if we are not going to stick with it.

Wel what is the point of even starting with this challenge, if we are not going to stick with it.

If it's working then we should stick with it. If it's a complete disaster what should we do?

I'm not saying it will be a complete disaster. We'll probably be fine, in fact there's no reason to believe this will be any more difficult than what we're used to. The problem is, what if 5 cities isn't enough to excite the populace and we end up with even fewer regulars than before?

Allowing it to be changeable is like having a lifeboat just in case things go wrong. Failing to do so is like starting off on a cruise with no lifeboats. Sure, not having a lifeboat will ensure that swimming lessons are well attended, but is it really a good idea?

Allowing it to be changeable is like having a lifeboat just in case things go wrong. Failing to do so is like starting off on a cruise with no lifeboats. Sure, not having a lifeboat will ensure that swimming lessons are well attended, but is it really a good idea?
If it turns out to be such a disaster then surely there ought to be enough support for an amendment to the constitution?

If it turns out to be such a disaster then surely there ought to be enough support for an amendment to the constitution?
Exactly. :goodjob: If we are going to have this challenge, then stick to it through the good times and the bad times. We wanted a challenge, because we won on Emporer so easily, so we must have this challenge set in concrete, so we must stay true to the course.

BTW, this think the 5bs is a dangerous compromise, because not enough people wanted to do a 5cc, but not enough wanted to continue on the same old path that we have troden so many times before.

If it turns out to be such a disaster then surely there ought to be enough support for an amendment to the constitution?

Unluckily, it's easier to fool everyone with stupidy. Then it is to enlighten them with sense.

I'm for putting the 5BC variant in the Constitution.

We're talking about a decision about the basics of the Civ 3 game underneath the DG. 5BC is a compromise variant that will dramatically change our we play the initial aspects of the game, and give us new challenges as we progress through the game. Those new challenges are what makes this variant exciting. Suddenly, we can't simply "out-produce" everyone - we've got to plan. We can't just capture at will - we've got to think. Invasions by other civs will represent real threats, not minor irritants.

We very well could be in difficult situations later in the game than we ever have before - and that's the exciting part of this variant. An actual risk of defeat, of losing, adds thrill and a sense of accomplishment to a victory!

The Code of Laws is a document that is designed to be easily and simply changed - a simple majority. It's where the details are given. The Constitution is the basic framework we base our government on. That's a good description of the 5BC - it's the basic framework we base our Civ3 game on. Before, we didn't have any restrictions on that Civ3 game, so we didn't need anything in the Constitution. We do now.

The information about the 5BC variant belongs in the Constitution. If it has truly become unwieldy and impossible, the vast majority of citizens will vote to overturn this, as they would for any other such clause of the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

If it turns out to be such a disaster then surely there ought to be enough support for an amendment to the constitution?

You'd think so -- but we have a lot of people saying they would rather lose the game than change the variant.

I'd rather lose the game like a man, than whimp out and win buy churning out settlers and winning domination.

You'd think so -- but we have a lot of people saying they would rather lose the game than change the variant.
Where's the point in playing a variant only for as long as you're sure that you're going to win? Losing the game will not necessarily make the DG a disaster provided the fight for survival is still fun.

Poll has been posted. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=124712)

This ought to be the last ruleset poll. Let's get it done, and look at starting the game!

-- Ravensfire

Where's the point in playing a variant only for as long as you're sure that you're going to win? Losing the game will not necessarily make the DG a disaster provided the fight for survival is still fun.

I'm not saying we should change if losing -- I'm saying we should change if it's not fun!

Anyway, we'll see how it works.