Civ4 REALPOLITIK

Note: The games name has been changed, since it will no longer be played on a PBEM Format.

A multiplayer game with a huge difference. In some ways similiar to the Democracy game, but with a fair amount of unique elements to make it a completely different experience.

Game Settings

The simulation itself will run on a PTBS Simultaneous turns basis.

Map Size:- Standard
Number of Human Civs:- 4
Number of AI Civs:- Definately none
Game Speed:- Normal
Victory Conditions:- None, like in real life... I severely doubt 1 Civ alone can achieve total victory.
Other Options:- Only 'Culture Flips after Combat', however in-game rules state a Civ cannot raze a city once it reaches Size 6.

Civilisations

This is the interesting part. I always thought it strange that every civ leaders in every game lived for 6000 years, and always thought it would be interesting to implement some form of internal politics,
leaders rising and falling, elections, into the game. Each Civilisation will be made up of many individuals. Sufficient numbers would be necessary to make this work. Basically, there will be no political parties as such, competing for power over a particular Civ. Instead, individuals (dare we call them Politicians) will compete for specific positions within a Civilisation.

Each Civilisation will have a governing body. (Known as the GB or Big 8)

The Governing Body

- Leader
- Vice Leader/Treasurer
- Military Advisor
- Scientific Advisor
- Religious Advisor
- Foreign Affairs & Trade Advisor
- Cultural & Civil Advisor
- Infrastructure Advisor

These people are elected into these positions and hold term for a set amount of time. With all of these positions, every important decision relating to the game will be accounted for.

Voting

Pretty much the most integral part of this game is voting. As a holder of any position with any Civ, you'll vote on anything and everything, not to mention the discussion on issues that will come before, after and during certain decisions. This is where the real politics come into play. Majority rules, and not only will you be worried about the interests of other Civ's, but you'll also have to worry about your fellow advisors... if you want you shape the Civilisation you're in, then you'll have to exert some influence.

The Big Decisions

(See image below)

Rate:- The Rate of Tax/Science/Culture (TSCR). 20 Votes, 10% rate for every 2 votes recieved. It's the Financial advisor's duty to post a proposed budget (roughly what + or - Gold will be with each rate).

For the rest, majority rules.

Tech:- Technology Research.
Borders:- Open Borders.
Trade:- Trade agreements of all kinds.
War:- Applies for both Conquest & Assisting Allies.
Civics:- The Civics. Civics can only be modified (or requested to be modified) every 4 turns.

Continued in post #5 (Improvements)

Top idea, old chap. Sounds very interesting. I'd love to join in myself, but I've recently made a lot of work for myself with this thing in my new sig, below.

Good luck though, and I'll be applying to join one day I'm sure. Very creative :)

Will people who have played (worked) for one civilization be banned from applying for jobs in another? Otherwise you might get double agents, trying to bring down an enemy from within.

Or is this something that you would allow, since it could happen in real life? (the double agent part, not, say, the president of america retiring then applying for a job as Russia's military advisor)

Obviously if the same person using the same name applies for a job in his former Civ's worst enemy, it will look dodgy. But you might get people creating second accounts (civfanatics accounts that is, with new email address), specifically to try and gain an advantage. You'll have to watch out for that.

Sorry, I see the worst in humans ;) :) Heheh

Count me in. Herandar for God-Emperor!

Continued from post #1

Improvements

(See image below)

Improvements/Units/Wonders will be built in a majority rules format for each city. Particular positions get double, triple and sometimes even quadruple votes for certain improvements/units/wonders.

Continued in post #6 (Units)

Continued from post #5 (Improvements)

Units

(See image below)

Just like with Improvements, certain members of a Governing Body will be bonuses.. in the case of units, it's alot simpler.

Leader - 2 Votes for any Unit... exceptions for this are shown below in the table.
Military Advisor - 3 Votes for any Unit... exceptions for this are shown below in the table.
All other advisors/members will have a standard 1 point vote... exceptions for this are shown below in the table.

Continued in post #7 (Wonders)

Continued from post #6 (Units)

Wonders

(See image below)

Still yet to draw up a format here, but will be very similiar to Units & Improvements. Each member of the governing body will recieve 1 standard vote, the Leader & Infrasctructure advisor will get more, and it will be relevant.. as in, a military and cultural wonder will qualify for bonus votes from the military and cultural advisors.

Continued in post #9 (Great People)

Great Ideas

I'll join

Continued from post #7 (Wonders)

Great People

(see image below)

Here is the table for when a Great Person is generated. Again, a vote. Again, majority rules.

Continued in post #10 (I'm interested... what happens now?)

Continued from post #9 (Great People)

I'm interested... What happens now?

First, take into account this game will be require a fair amount of discussion, debating, voting, sneaking, extorting... the typical political stuff. On some days, it may be as simple as a single post and a vote, on others, there could be more. It's a game for the long haul, but one I hope will be thoroughly rewarding for the effort put in.

This said, and you're still interested... here's the plan...

1. We've reached the initial minimum player amount...

2. The game rules are set, the forums are up and ready at evo-games.net.

3. The vote has begun on what Leaders (Civs) will be in the game. Please refer to the rules at evo-games.net (check my sig) to see how the process works.

4. After thus, each Civ will then hold its initial Elections. Each player must allocate what position they're running for... so if players 1-7 run for Leader & player 8 runs for Vice Leader, then player 8 will automatically be Vice Leader. At any point where there is more than 1 player running for a position, then all 8 players must vote (and natually, not for themselves). The elections continue until places are filled.

Note: A Civ can have more than 8 members. In fact, the more, the better. Other players not in the GB will simply be considering 'back-benchers'.. and while they cannot vote, they are free to express their opinion... and conspire with each other to get some front-seats come next election.

Interested (Enlightened) Peoples

These lucky people will be a part of this game from get-go

1. Great Scott
2. Herandar IV
3. Mr. Pointless
4. joethreeblah
5. Argh
6. Locky III
7. decarth
8. potatokiosk
(enough for 1 Civ!)
9. Corossol
10. Boogaloo Shrimp
11. cloudraine
12. mabeco
13. DaveShack
14. truckeegeek
15. MookieNJ
16. realn
(enough for 2 Civs!)
17. Sigma
18. wolfman1234
19. Traxis
20. Abdukrahman
21. shday
22. facehuger
23. [COLOR=black]Border Fox
24. nrseven
(enough for 3 civs!)
25. vra379971
26. Jeppson
27. drhirsch
28. azzaman333
29. CB Droege
30. Byrath
31. Cleric
32. Romaneste
(THE GAME BEGINS!)
33. SamE

Will people who have played (worked) for one civilization be banned from applying for jobs in another? Otherwise you might get double agents, trying to bring down an enemy from within.

(Note: I had my original reply to this copied to a word file, but I accidentally closed. I'm reposting because I feel it's a good point)

I quite like the idea of double agents trying to bring an enemy down from within. I've made an amendment to this... for a player to run for any position in an election for any civ, they must first be authorised by myself. Here's the procedure...

Player wishing to run for a position within a Civ must email my administation email, PBEM_Enhanced[at]hotmail.com.

I will check their IP address, duplicate IP addresses will warrant an alert, shown to all friendly (Open Borders & Allies) Civ's of the Civ in which the person applied for.

Quite simply, double agents can go 2 ways.

1. They can simply enlist as a member of the foreign Civ. If the foreign Civ has alot more than 10 members, this is effective... as the player can remain as a member and be privvy to certain information, and remaining so since competition for places with alot more than 10 members would be quite high, and their excuse for not running for election could be that they are still new to the game/Civ and wish to wait till their time comes. The downside of this, is, they aren't an advisor/leader, so they'll have no say when it comes to voting... and may miss out on certain information and/or discussion that only the 'Top 10' are privvy to. Another one is, certain Civs could make it compulsary to run for election immediately or after a set amount of time that the player has been a member. Besides, if you don't run for an election, it will look a little suspect.

2. A player is only a member of his friendly Civ, and has never run for election could join another Civ and enlist to run for an election there. Since they've never had their IP address recorded before, there will be no warning bells.


Something like this, however, is risky. Once you are elected and part of the 'Top 10' within a foreign Civ, you'll have a tricky task of looking like you're doing the right thing, when, in fact, you are trying to sabotage it's operations. As in, if you lose the trust of your fellow advisors and voters, you'll be out the very next election. Plus, someone for this task will have to never run for election within their own Civ. Which, at this point, the agent will need to ensure his friendly Civ trusts him enough... after all, he has a Top 10 position now with a foreign Civ... Is he just feeding you misinformation and spying on YOU instead???
(I LOVE IT!)

Sorry, I see the worst in humans ;) :) Heheh

I actually want to see the best & worst in humans in this game. Muhahaha :lol:

Ok, an overall analysis of the voting structure for each leader... the Big 10.

Please note, the 'Big Decisions' have a bias of 10... since they are.. well... 'Big Decisions'... as in for the Leader, he really has only 18 votes instead of 180... but gives an idea of who gets how much of a say and who doesn't.

A few points, naturally the ideal position is Leader, then Vice-Leader.

Interesting to note, Infrastructure is quite high overall, but lowest by a fair whack in the Big Decisions.

Naturally, I think we'll see alot of interest in Military.. as it fares quite highly in decisions, and naturally with the added bonus of war-time fun.

Of the 4 that are in the 2nd lowest group in Big Decisions (with 9 votes), it goes Culture (surprising eh?) Civil, Financial, then Religious... I guess a treasurer really isn't the most exciting job... I have a feeling this and Civil will be the least in demand.

Culture may be high up, but I think Foreign Affairs & Science (both 3rd in Big Decisions) have their own fields which are more appealing than Culture.. so they should prove to be higher in demand... and same goes for Religion..

So heres my Top 10.... in terms of what I think demand will be (handy to know during election time)

Leader
Vice Leader
Military
Foreign Affairs & Trade/Science (Tied)
Cultural
Religious
Infrastructure
Civil
Financial

And this one.......

And just 1 more...

Can I vote for myself to be the great leader yet?

You can't vote for yourself.. ever... and well, we don't have enough people to even fill 1 Civ up..

Remember how much trouble you had filling up the 18 player PBEM game??

(Which I still haven't received yet... I thought those were jokes about getting to play as a Christmas present.)

Remember how much trouble you had filling up the 18 player PBEM game??

(Which I still haven't received yet... I thought those were jokes about getting to play as a Christmas present.)

It wasn't too hard. It was more about getting the 18 to realise the game had begun. Well, thing is, I see the amount of posts Argh is getting for his Anarchy game... and I see the amount of posts for the Demogames... so there's definately hope for this thing...

Pah, most of those posts are me and three other people. It hasn't "taken off" as much as it looks like it has. Lol.

Still, I could chuck it in soon and join this instead :) Maybe.

Pah, most of those posts are me and three other people. It hasn't "taken off" as much as it looks like it has. Lol.

Still, I could chuck it in soon and join this instead :) Maybe.

Oh you mean I still haven't tempted you yet? Well, the thing is, by the time we get 50+ people in on this, you'll be up to Anarchy Game 200... c'mon! Sign up!! Get in quick before the rush.. you'll look cool and trend-setting :crazyeye:

You tempted me with your first post. But I AM trying to give up internet addictions, not find new ones....

If I play, serve a term in an office to the end of that term, can I then quite the game with no stigma?

Well... I don't see why not.. anyone is free to come and join... and also free to leave.

I plan on starting the game with more players than there will be Top 10 spots for each civ.. so we have a few back-benchers putting the pressure on the Top 10'ers.... plus Elections will be alot of fun that way...

Plus the backbenchers could always be double agents!

So what makes you think you'll even get serve a term??? hehe :king:

Maybe this should be in the Demogame forum?

Argh's Anarchy game is funny, especially the "players" that sabotage the Civ.

Hey, the fact you BEGGED me to join Scott, I think that means I get to be Queen, erm, I mean KING of England for as long as I want. Joke. But please, don't randomly make me be French, eh?

Argh's Anarchy is over. Niffweed17 got his way, and we died very quickly in the end.

Good luck recruiting players Scott, I'll mention it around from now on.

I don't see Argh on the lucky people list.

Maybe this should be in the Demogame forum?

Argh's Anarchy game is funny, especially the "players" that sabotage the Civ.

It's not a Demogame.. I dunno, should it be in their forum.. we might be stepping on thier toes? I think if it gets moved there, only people who play Demogame will see it, and possibly join.

I have a few advertising posts in the Demogame forums anyway.

I don't see Argh on the lucky people list.

I don't see him on their either. He said his Anarchy game has ended (I want to be a part of the 2nd one, btw).. he said good luck, and that he'll spread the word...

But..

He didn't say he wanted to be on the lucky person list...

Maybe he should.. dammit.

P.S. Updated Improvements & Units tables to all be a conformed 17 votes.. since before there was a range of 13-16, and the ones with 13 would have more change of being built... less needed for a majority.

Wonders, I'll start after lunch, plus I'll tally all the leaders/advisors voting power to see how lucrative (or not) each one is.

I'm up for the challenge.

I'm up for the challenge.

Excellent, you're now on the lucky person list.

Note - I also added Argh. I'm taking his last post as a "yes".

Hmm, ::does the mr. burns fingers tapping:: interesting. Might have found a use for reading the art of war in this one, count me in

I sort of made a conditional offer that I'l play if I'm not randomly representing France.

Vote Argh for English military advisor!?

I'm in, if you'll have me Great Scott.

I sort of made a conditional offer that I'l play if I'm not randomly representing France.

Vote Argh for English military advisor!?

I'm in, if you'll have me Great Scott.

Well i've been thinking... a good way to get people in real quick (I added 5 people to the list today, so I guess things are looking better) is to have a first come, first served basis when it comes to choosing your civ. So you may get that wish.

Thinking... although i DO like the idea of people choosing the Civ, and only the Civ with the most votes (and those who voted) goes in, 1 round at a time.

I'll join. Looks like an excellent way to spend too much time on the internet.

I'll join too. But I really think we should start in the Classical age, it has the Ancient "feeling" while giving us a few more decisions at the start (instead of waiting for a first worker/warrior for a million turns). Maybe Quick speed also (to compensate for slower decision-making). What do you think?

That actually sounds like a good idea.

Well, as far as I can see.. here are the pros & cons

Ancient Age

+ A slow start will allow us to warm up to this new type of game.

Classical Age

+ Like Corossol said, a Classical start will make the game more exciting with alot of decisions to make.

Currently, we have 9 members... I think it's time for a poll.... our first vote!

Considering that a boring start is much more likely to make people lose interest than a exciting start...
And I think we should have just five civs... that way we'll be able to fill at this rate.

Considering that a boring start is much more likely to make people lose interest than a exciting start...
And I think we should have just five civs... that way we'll be able to fill at this rate.

Well the vote will show what people want... which I've a feeling will be Classical.

Edit: Oh and as for the amount of civs... I'm leaving that open until the amount of players joining begins to slow down.

I guess getting to play will be my my birthday present... (February)

dude this thing is unbelievable! get me in on this!

Well, thats another 2 in today, 4 in yesterday... at 3 per day we'll get there pretty quick. (heh good timing Boogaloo... you're in.)

And!!!! We've enough people for 1 Civ!

A one civ game? I didn't know actual full scale civil wars were possible in civ4.

A one civ game? I didn't know actual full scale civil wars were possible in civ4.

Civil wars... oh man that would be good... imagine a Civ about halfway though, in the renaissance period or something.. As the game progresses, it becomes clear there are 2 groups with completely opposing views of what direction the Civ should go in, making up the Top 10.

Then, a big decision arrives... and 1 group gets their way... and the other group can't take it. They stage a coup! Man, I gotta figure out a way to make that possible.

Thanks for the inspiration!

Or they secede. And they commandeer forces and choose their own civics. The government, trying to stop the rebels, would be allowed to declare war on the seceding people with no reprecussions. And third parties would have the option of recognizing the rebels. This would only happen if there was a general divide withn the civ in the game itself.

Or they succeed. And the commandeer forces and choose their own civics. The government, trying to stop the rebels, would be allowed to declare war on the succeeding people with no reprecussions. And third parties would have the option of recognizing the rebels. This would only happen if there was a general divide withn the civ in the game itself.

Hmm, I like the idea of this, it's a shame we can't induce Anarchy when this happens, ie no production, cities rioting etc. Hmm, I'm not too familiar with world builder, but I believe it's not possible for the games administration (so far, just me) to actually take the 1 Civ in Civil War, divide up the cities and units, and watch them go for it. That would be.. BRILLIANT. Someone PLEASE tell me it's possible.

Personally, I think that it would be hilarious to watch people carve up an empire they had worked so hard together to build.

Personally, I think that it would be hilarious to watch people carve up an empire they had worked so hard together to build.

Oh the importance of putting their civ ahead of your own interests... it's PERFECT. Anyone know if we can jump in mid-game and split a Civ in 2, much like what happened when you took over an enemy civs capital back in the day?

Hello Great Scott, just received your message. This looks intriguing! Sign me up! 60 people.. I shudder at the thought!

Hello Great Scott, just received your message. This looks intriguing! Sign me up! 60 people.. I shudder at the thought!

We have 11... and I started this only a few days ago :crazyeye:

Make sure you vote on what starting era you want...

Wow. Pitboss has arrived.

The game just became a hell of alot more playable! :D

I'm interested in getting in one of the teams.

We have a somewhat less structured democracy PBEM in the works over in the DemoGame. We're getting the SP game going and waiting for patch stabilization before pressing to get started.

What's the point of having so many leadership positions per team, with the highly structured voting mechanism? There have been two inter-site team PBEMs and one intra-CFC game without this much detail. Would you mind if each team decided how to organize itself?

Another place to advertize is in the Civ3 demogame, in the multi-team DG subforum.

I'm starting to become interested... though I'll need to better understand the time commitments involved and get a handle on my schedule after the new year.

Have you considered allowing intersite civs? Might add a whole new aspect to the political intrigue of the game. Could get intense. Especially with the possibility for double agents or secret alliances etc.

We have a somewhat less structured democracy PBEM in the works over in the DemoGame. We're getting the SP game going and waiting for patch stabilization before pressing to get started.

What's the point of having so many leadership positions per team, with the highly structured voting mechanism? There have been two inter-site team PBEMs and one intra-CFC game without this much detail. Would you mind if each team decided how to organize itself?

Another place to advertize is in the Civ3 demogame, in the multi-team DG subforum.

Personally, I find Democracy too infinite in it's choices. Like, you literally begin a government from scratch. Then there's the rules... it actually seems alot more confusing to me.

The point of having so many leadership positions is that while all 10 members are doing their best in 1 sense to ensure their Civ is progressing competitively in the world, in the other they are all competing for their own positions.. whether it be battling to stay in position or to get a better position next term. Let's face it, most of us will want to be Leader... plain and simple. And I've made it that way that the Leader of a Civ is what we all strive for. But not everyone will get what they want, and it will make this VERY interesting as the game progresses. Throw in backbenchers (members of a Civ who currently aren't serving in a position) no doubt very keen to grab a position of their own, and the possibility of spying, and double agents... and I think this game will be a real mind-trip...

So much co-operation & teamwork, and so many political 'complications'.. it's a perfect mix of good and bad.

The voting is structured simply to have tiered positions. Leader is the best, others are reputable, others are merely fillers, or experience earners... it's set that way so only a few get the better say... and that elite sense will be envy of all...

We're friends... but in a small (or possibly big) way, we are foes. I hope that sums it up.. it's late.. and i could be rambling now.

P.S. I promoted this in the Civ 3 Demogames forum.

I'm starting to become interested... though I'll need to better understand the time commitments involved and get a handle on my schedule after the new year.

Have you considered allowing intersite civs? Might add a whole new aspect to the political intrigue of the game. Could get intense. Especially with the possibility for double agents or secret alliances etc.

Time commitment? well it all depends.. sometimes you will need to be quite active when real pressing matters are at hand. As for voting, if you are unable to vote for a few decisions, you simply wont have your vote counted.. which now and then i'm sure will be understandable... since you have 9 other players sharing the slack. However, I guess if one is absent too much.. it'll look bad come next elections.

As for multi-site? Bring them on... this isn't confined to any website.. or anything. However, it's not like they'd get their own Civ... they'll simply have to band together and try and ensure come start of game, their all in the same civ.

As far as time.. I've been trying to imagine exactly how a turn works. Will the players on a civ team get together and play the turn as one? Later turns may take a long time to complete. Especially with having to vote on multiple matters per turn. Civ teams could make decisions ahead of time, but then there are certain to be times when the actions of other civs will cause a change in tactics/decisions. Things that will not be known until the turn begins. So decision makers will all need to be present at every turn wouldn't they?

And for a website affiliated civ... Would it be possible to get a full set of players together and then sign up? Effectively guaranteeing that they'd all be on the same civ? Other players from other websites could still enlist in open civs with no website ties. Might be interesting to have a couple Apoly and CFC civs, along with a few single civs from smaller sites. And then a few civs of non-site affiliation to round it out. This might make for some pretty interesting and unexpected occurances like defensive pacts, trading alliances, war allies etc..??

I imagine that in later parts of the game, people would vote on general policies as opposed to individual decisions.

I guess what I was trying to say is that a team of people could join the Civ4 MTDG and organize their team using this system. That way you'd only need enough people interested in it to form one team, not the 60 or so needed to get at least 4 teams and make it interesting.

Alternatively, have your game be a contest between the systems. Have 1 or more teams which are organized using this system, and one or more civs populated by people who want it to be less formal. :cool:

It will be awfully difficult to get enough to fill 10 formal positions per team. Sure in the MTDG we have ~25 people signed up per team, but some teams only have 5 or so actives, the rest signed up but then couldn't handle the low interest levels of PBEM speeds so they dissapeared.

Actually, there is no reason you can't have your game, and also organize a Civ4 team into the DG using this system.

BTW, I'm interested. :)

As far as time.. I've been trying to imagine exactly how a turn works. Will the players on a civ team get together and play the turn as one?

Each Civ will be given a particular amount of time to play their turn. When it is their turn, they are regarded as the Civ 'in turn' or 'in play'.

Alot of decisions will be easy and predictable.. especially early on I presume. During the time where the other civs are 'in turn', a Civ can always plan ahead, and of course, vote ahead. For example, when you know a Barracks has 1 turn to go in your previous turn, then of course, you'll be able to plan ahead and discuss what you'll play next. Using the time effectively whilst the other civs are in turn will be paramount.


Things that will not be known until the turn begins. So decision makers will all need to be present at every turn wouldn't they?

Yes.. well, the leader (or someone appointed by the leader) will recieve the turn, and present in a post the decisions needed to be made. Then the Civ has between that point and the turn deadline to vote.. and discuss where necessary.

And for a website affiliated civ... Would it be possible to get a full set of players together and then sign up? Effectively guaranteeing that they'd all be on the same civ?

Like I said, the elections will start, and people must vote for the civ they want. If a group of players want to work together, they will vote for the same civ together. And well, if they vote, say Mongols, and they get it, but also have 4 other players from this website in, well i'm sure they'll have ways of controlling the majority, no doubt until those 4 players get sick of Mongols and join another civ. As in, if say, CFC have 10+ players in the Mongols, then theres no way those other 4 will ever get an position.

I guess what I was trying to say is that a team of people could join the Civ4 MTDG and organize their team using this system. That way you'd only need enough people interested in it to form one team, not the 60 or so needed to get at least 4 teams and make it interesting.

Alternatively, have your game be a contest between the systems. Have 1 or more teams which are organized using this system, and one or more civs populated by people who want it to be less formal. :cool:

It will be awfully difficult to get enough to fill 10 formal positions per team. Sure in the MTDG we have ~25 people signed up per team, but some teams only have 5 or so actives, the rest signed up but then couldn't handle the low interest levels of PBEM speeds so they dissapeared.

Actually, there is no reason you can't have your game, and also organize a Civ4 team into the DG using this system.

BTW, I'm interested. :)

Well it would be nice to have seen this type of game in action first, know it works, and then jump into the MTDG! When does MTDG start? The thing is, who gets chosen out of the many we have here to join the MTDG? I guess I'd like to get this game up and running, quickly, and then when MTDG is almost ready to start, we can take volunteers to take part in the MTDG.

If people disappear, as in, if less than 10 people are in a Civ, well, 1 or more people are going to be holding more than 1 position.. should be interesting!

I've recieved a few emails, I need to add them now.. but I think we're pushing for almost 20 people now for this game...

It's Xmas day here, so when things quieten down a bit i'll approach the other websites to get interest. Or, if anyone else is a regular there, and on the list here, perhaps they could do some spruiking ;)

A game like this with 60+ people would need to be run on its own website or something.

;) ;) ;)

Let me know what you think.

If I'm allowed to, i would like to control a civ by myself. It could be an experiment, testing whether a group of people is more effective in a game than a single person.

Count me in!

I agree that the Classical age would be the best place to start.

My only worry with this game is player retention: if you imagine the time frame for a turn is 1 day (a reasonable amount of time), it's going to be extremely hard to keep all 60 players interested if they only have about 1 turn per week. There would have to be some way to replace someone who disappeared, without notifying us of course.
Maybe if it's been two turns without a peep from someone (no votes, nothing), then the inactive player is put on a 'probation status', and a temporary replacement is chosen as a proxy (casts all votes as if he were the person in the position). If the inactive player is still inactive 2 turns after he was put on probation, the replacement is permanently elected to that position.

A game like this with 60+ people would need to be run on its own website or something.

Let me know what you think.

That, or the fine people at CivFanatics may give us our own dedicated section...

If I'm allowed to, i would like to control a civ by myself. It could be an experiment, testing whether a group of people is more effective in a game than a single person.

Well, it's an interesting proposition, but if you get to rule your own civ, well, the whole point of all of us trying to compete for more control over a civ, competing for more control over other civs.

Just wouldn't be fair.

Count me in!

I agree that the Classical age would be the best place to start.

My only worry with this game is player retention: if you imagine the time frame for a turn is 1 day (a reasonable amount of time), it's going to be extremely hard to keep all 60 players interested if they only have about 1 turn per week. There would have to be some way to replace someone who disappeared, without notifying us of course.
Maybe if it's been two turns without a peep from someone (no votes, nothing), then the inactive player is put on a 'probation status', and a temporary replacement is chosen as a proxy (casts all votes as if he were the person in the position). If the inactive player is still inactive 2 turns after he was put on probation, the replacement is permanently elected to that position.

There is a very easy way around this. If you're absent too much, your fellow Civ members won't vote you in come next election. Plus, each election, you have to register each time... even if you have an existing position.

P.S. Please vote in the poll for the start you want..

Well, it's an interesting proposition, but if you get to rule your own civ, well, the whole point of all of us trying to compete for more control over a civ, competing for more control over other civs.

Just wouldn't be fair.

Fair enough. I'd probably have been one of the bottom-rung civs anyway, as i have some troubles on Noble.

Still interested in joining anyways?

A few issues I have with the system so far...

First of all, you talk about the votes for building a unit, but no mention is made of what is done with a unit once it is produced (i.e., which promotions should be chosen, where should it go, etc.) Would they be the same proportion of votes for the creation of the unit?

Also, I noticed that you gave 3 votes to the Civic Advisor and 1 vote to the Inf Advisor for a Worker; I'd recommend giving 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor. But for the Settler, you gave 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor; I'd recommend giving 2 votes to each.

I don't understand how voting will work to decide what is built in a city. You laid out voting numbers for each unit/building, but since you can only be building one thing at a time then it is not a simple yes/no vote. Will it just be whatever receives the most votes, with each advisor only choosing one thing? Then you could end up with 10 different options, each advisor choosing a different one, and you'll just end up with one because that person picked one where he had 4 votes. Will you require a majority of votes (at least 9/17) on that one improvement? But what if more than one improvement gets a majority, or what if there's a tie? It's up to you what type of system you use, maybe you have one already and I'm just not understanding it. But I would still recommend that, in the case of a diplomatic stalemate, it falls upon the leader's shoulders to make a final decision.

Another pretty big thing that was left out is City Management, as in which spaces are harvested, and how many of each specialist there are. Obviously the Infrastructure Advisor would play a large role here, in addition to the leader and vice leader. But the other advisors would have a say in the specialists of their area of expertise.

I like what you've done with the Infrastructure Advisor. They get to concentrate on getting as much FPC out of the land as possible, while keeping the citizens fed, healthy, and happy, without having to worry about the big picture. They play a crucial role in the success of the nation, but don't get to choose what form of success that is.

A couple of afterthoughts:
You forgot about a city's ability to convert half of its production into wealth, research, or culture. Not sure how often this would get used, but the option needs to be there. ;)
Oh, and you also left out the State Religion - I imagine the Religious Advisor would be mostly in control here.

Let me know what you think of my suggestions.

Sigma

First of all, you talk about the votes for building a unit, but no mention is made of what is done with a unit once it is produced (i.e., which promotions should be chosen, where should it go, etc.) Would they be the same proportion of votes for the creation of the unit?

Good question. The reason I've not said anything, is while I've already thought about it... I've not made up my mind yet! Here's the thing... I think with units, only 2 advisors count... Leader & Military. I've tossed a few scenarios about.. and the best I've come up with is this..

Leader, Vice Leader & Military decide the designation of a unit once it is created. For example, a City produce a unit, and the 3 decide whether the unit is for defense, attack, exploration, border patrol.... it seems to make sense.. if the Leader & Vice Leader both swing one way, and the Military another, well then naturally the Military advisor should have no say.

Once the unit is out in the field, carrying out orders, it's up to the military entirely.

Unit promotions, again, entirely up to the Military. Makes sense.

Also, I noticed that you gave 3 votes to the Civic Advisor and 1 vote to the Inf Advisor for a Worker; I'd recommend giving 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor. But for the Settler, you gave 3 votes to the Inf Advisor and 1 vote to the Civic Advisor; I'd recommend giving 2 votes to each.

Agreed. Changes have been noted & changed.

I don't understand how voting will work to decide what is built in a city. Will it just be whatever receives the most votes, with each advisor only choosing one thing?

Yes.

Then you could end up with 10 different options, each advisor choosing a different one, and you'll just end up with one because that person picked one where he had 4 votes.

Yes, you could... but.. not all units/improvements/wonders have an advisor granted 4 votes. Plus, advisors with lower votes may always do their best to get their way, through teamwork with others.

In the case of a diplomatic stalemate, it falls upon the leader's shoulders to make a final decision.

If there is a tie in votes, the Leader gets the choice.

Another pretty big thing that was left out is City Management, as in which spaces are harvested, and how many of each specialist there are. Obviously the Infrastructure Advisor would play a large role here, in addition to the leader and vice leader. But the other advisors would have a say in the specialists of their area of expertise.

This... I'm still figuring out... or trying to..:mischief:


I like what you've done with the Infrastructure Advisor. They get to concentrate on getting as much FPC out of the land as possible, while keeping the citizens fed, healthy, and happy, without having to worry about the big picture. They play a crucial role in the success of the nation, but don't get to choose what form of success that is.

Thanks, I wanted a few roles where they didn't do the glamorous work, but the nitty gritty behind the scenes... and be quite influence in their work... so yeah, it fit very well.

You forgot about a city's ability to convert half of its production into wealth, research, or culture. Not sure how often this would get used, but the option needs to be there. ;)

I knew I'd forgotten something there in the building... ok.. gimme a bit and I'll figure it out and post revised tables.

Oh, and you also left out the State Religion - I imagine the Religious Advisor would be mostly in control here.

Precisely. The State and the Church are 2 seperate entities. I think a certain event regarding St. Thomas Beckett & Henry II should remind us of what can happen with that formula :lol:

Let me know what you think of my suggestions.

Keep the coming! I like being tested on how viable and leak-proof this creation is... I hope for a smooth process when the game begins...

We have enough for 2 Civs, that's right! 20 people and growing.

If we start this first game with 4 Civs, then.. we're halfway there!

Hmm... it's gone a little quiet... everyone on holiday mode or something?

Something like that:D

I think the rules are being very well managed so far and they work as a kind of constitution for all the civs, but, like in real life, I think that each civ could shape their own "constitutions" with proposals, and the existing rules would be the startup constitution (that of course can be maintained till the end).
I would say that a 2/3 of votes with 1 vote per advisor would approve a change.
What do you think Great Scott?
That could really make a mess in bad organized civs but would be more fun for the better ones and it could help you in the task of managing the improvement of the rules for the next game.
I hope I'm not building up entropy, but since things are calm... :rolleyes:

This is a PM I sent him that he ignored. Oh well.

Hello,

Your idea PBEM Enchanged sounds similiar to my idea Civilization: The Real World, CIV:RW for short.

I've popped in/out of the civilization community for about 5 years, but I'm pretty outside of all the details. Last year I became a citizen of the Demo game and visited it a couple of times, posting maybe only 2-3 topics. I loved it, but I lost interest extremely fast and moved on thinking that it could be better run. At that moment I thought of the idea of creating an entirely self-based website to administer a massively multipler realistic game setup with civilizations controlled by individual groups that decided on THEIR own how they ran their civilization. In a nutshell: A Civlization Game UNLEASED to represent civilization and it's advancement in real life.

So, this is really BIG and includes some fundementals that were recently brought to the board in your topic, so I am glad I read it.

One is that there would be no government structure decided by the who sets up the game, because civilizations govern and structure themselves.

Another is it would be multiplayer/multi-team.

Lastly, since it is so big, is that it would be on it's own website. I will get to that later.

--------Some Specifics------------

The game is called Civilization: The Real World, Civ:RW for short. It would be played on Sid Meier's Civilization 4, Civ4 for short, and referred to as the "game file". It would be adminstered by a staff referred to as "game setup" staff. It would be particpated by anyone that registers as a "forum user". In real life, this can be considered "Life", "History", or "The Real World" which is controlled by "God", "Nature", "Weather", or "Natural Forces" and lived by "People", "Specialists", and "Leaders".

To put something like this on, there would be some rules. Consider these "Laws of Nature". In this game, they'll be called "Realism Rules". These are important concepts that make the game realistic and FUN. These rules are meant to help aid the game's realism ONLY.

Realism Rules

POPULATION:

"Population" is the amount of people in the game.

The game setup determines "population" by the amount of "forum users" playing a part in the RealCiv (Civilization: The Real World) game.

The game file determines "citizen amount" by the population in the Civ4 game.

For every one (1) "citizen unit" in the game, there must be at least 2 to at most 10 forum users on the website accounted for that citizen unit. This can be considered a "family", "household" or "working class" unit.

If the population is lower than citizen amount, then a citizen unit in the game is to be removed by game setup. This represents society's tendecy to have emmigration or a low birth/death rate.

If the population is higher than citizen amount, then a citizen unit in the game is to be added by game setup. This represents society's tendecy to have immigration and a high birth/death rate.

BIRTH/DEATH RATE:

The game file does not determine birth/death rate. The rate "users" enter/leave the game through the website forums determines birth/death rate.

EMMIGRATION/IMMIGRATION:

The game file somewhat determines emmigration/immigration. This involves defination of civilization which can be worked on.

--------------------------------

That's just basic population rules. More other Civ4 elements can be altered to fit this game. Notice though how these rules would be straight to the point and meant to make the game fun and , and of course they would be altered a lot from this to have universal terms, etc. Note, though, that rules aren't interferring how each civilization can adminster how family units are organized. This recaps the previous comment on your idea that each civilization should be allowed to structure and govern their own civilization to how they see fit.

~

Now to the website part. I have enough knowledge of creating websites and adminstering communities to put something like this on. It would need its own website. There is so much that this project would need that a simple addition to CivFanatics forum just wouldn't do. I am totally up to do something like this, including paying and managing the website. Since I am new to the community, though, I don't plan to get involved with the specifics of anything. I'll oversee it, fund it, and own it (for non-profit reasons). I do not wish to run it. If you think you would like to take the idea to the next level, let me know. Thx.

Realn

Hey, count me in. This sounds really fun. My email is rjharder@gmail.com. Tell me if there's a website or something that goes up. You've put a lot of work into this, and I think it might work.

BTW, who gets to decide exactly where units move in war and what not?

Also, will we be able to give some sort of speech to argue why we should be elected? Also, how often are elections? How will communication take place? Can you choose your second, third and fourth choices for running? For example, I want to be leader the most, but if I can't have that I'd like to be the cultural advisor. Is there any way I could do that?

realn,

Probably he's just busy. Also, your idea seems quite a bit different... deserves its own thread I think.

All,

Both these game types (CIV:RW and CIV4 PBEM Enhanced) probably need a web application to make them work well. Since the game uses Python, a great web framework to use would be TurboGears http://www.turbogears.org. It is very new and is partially inspired by Ruby on Rails, so it is meant to be highly productive.

Food for thought.

shday

hmmm, i like the idea :goodjob: .....count me in!!!

Seems like this would take alot of organisation, but if it's done right it'd be great, already seems promising. You can put me down to make up the numbers. :)

I think the rules are being very well managed so far and they work as a kind of constitution for all the civs, but, like in real life, I think that each civ could shape their own "constitutions" with proposals, and the existing rules would be the startup constitution (that of course can be maintained till the end).
I would say that a 2/3 of votes with 1 vote per advisor would approve a change.
What do you think Great Scott?
That could really make a mess in bad organized civs but would be more fun for the better ones and it could help you in the task of managing the improvement of the rules for the next game.
I hope I'm not building up entropy, but since things are calm... :rolleyes:

A tough call. However... if your above idea was in place, then this game would be no different from Multi-Team Democracy. I want this game to be different, in that it does have a structure, a simple (simple if people are active and vote when required) structure... but with the added twist of real-life politics (personal gain vs. the gain of your civ) and espionage (double agents in other civs).

Therefore, the system of voting & terms must stay in place.

This is a PM I sent him that he ignored. Oh well.

Sorry realn, with xmas/new years and starting up this game, I've been a bit bogged down. As for your ideas, I like them, but I feel my ideas are different from yours and would prefer to stick to them... even if it does fail... This is my idea of an interesting way to play Civ, I hope it works.. and I at least want to stick my original vision, go with it.. and see how it goes.

Yours in quite interesting too.. perhaps you should re-submit openings for it and see how many you get it.

As for the website... in terms of the voting, I think we definately need a website to run this...

We'd need a rules section, a news section for annoucements, wars & their outcomes, election results and so on.

The above could be implemented into this website quite easily, but what we'd really need is private forums, for each Civ... if we had simple polls here each we'd need to vote, firstly others would be able to view everything the Civ decided on, from Civics, to Elections, to what they built. Secondly, with the voting, outsiders may come in and vote, to confuse things.

Definately, definately, need a website for this.

BTW, who gets to decide exactly where units move in war and what not?

Also, will we be able to give some sort of speech to argue why we should be elected? Also, how often are elections? How will communication take place? Can you choose your second, third and fourth choices for running? For example, I want to be leader the most, but if I can't have that I'd like to be the cultural advisor. Is there any way I could do that?

For unit movment, see my post on page 4 where i quoted a big bunch of suggestions from Sigma, I address the issue there.

And yes, we will be able to make speechs, election campaigns and what not. Communication will take place, hopefully with a separate website which will have dedicated, private sections for each Civ to discuss, enroll to vote and vote on everything....

As for the elections.. it works like this. 1st round of each election, people may register for a position. There will be a short timeframe for this... where people will 'vote' for their preferred position. When that closes, the results are posted, and the members must then vote for who they want in each position... for example, if player 1 & 2 register for 'Leader', 3 registers for Vice Leader, well when the voting has to take place, all players but 1 & 2, must vote for either player 1 & 2, for Leader. Since Player 3 is the only candidate for Vice Leader, he wins by default. Right, now just say Player 1 wins the election and becomes Leader... then there is another round, if and only if there are positions where there were no candidates. So if no-one registered for Cultural Advisor, Player 2 and all other members not in a Top 10 position can register to for that round 2 election.

Well i'm officially back from the silly season, 3 more players in, so we're cruising towards having enough numbers.

4 Civs... might be a good number for the first game.

Regarding unit movement:

Good question. The reason I've not said anything, is while I've already thought about it... I've not made up my mind yet! Here's the thing... I think with units, only 2 advisors count... Leader & Military. I've tossed a few scenarios about.. and the best I've come up with is this..

Leader, Vice Leader & Military decide the designation of a unit once it is created. For example, a City produce a unit, and the 3 decide whether the unit is for defense, attack, exploration, border patrol.... it seems to make sense.. if the Leader & Vice Leader both swing one way, and the Military another, well then naturally the Military advisor should have no say.

Once the unit is out in the field, carrying out orders, it's up to the military entirely.

Unit promotions, again, entirely up to the Military. Makes sense.

Certain units, like the worker and work boat, should probably not be moved by the Military advisor.

I'm VERY interested here!

BTW, If you haven't solved your situation, I see no reason why you couldn't split a Civ into two via WorldBuilder. I'm pretty sure you can reassign cities to another Civ.

EDIT: Ok....I lied. It's doable, BUT you'd have to delete the city, and replace it AND rebuild it exactly as it was before. It isn't hard, just time consuming.

Note:- ... the total number of votes for each decision [are] all odd, so there's always a majority.


This implies that all Big 10 members would participate in every vote. Although this would be nice,it would slow things down too much. There should be a time limit on vote submission. If there is a tie after that, the responsible advisor would make the final call.

as you prolly need more members: I'm in!!
being a backbencher is no problem for me, it would give me some time to get to understand the game.

Well i'm officially back from the silly season, 3 more players in, so we're cruising towards having enough numbers.

4 Civs... might be a good number for the first game.

Of course, I'm assuming more people could join after it starts up?

Of course, I'm assuming more people could join after it starts up?

Of course.

Regarding unit movement:



Certain units, like the worker and work boat, should probably not be moved by the Military advisor.

Good point.

I'm VERY interested here!

BTW, If you haven't solved your situation, I see no reason why you couldn't split a Civ into two via WorldBuilder. I'm pretty sure you can reassign cities to another Civ.

EDIT: Ok....I lied. It's doable, BUT you'd have to delete the city, and replace it AND rebuild it exactly as it was before. It isn't hard, just time consuming.

Excellent. I really wanted the possiblity of Civil War!

Excellent. I really wanted the possiblity of Civil War!

No...:p That idea was actually HORRIBLE! I had a brainwave while doing dishes...

Say you have X city owned by English>Civil War> You mod the map to add ONE American city somewhere. Doesn't even have to be good, just one somewhere. Then, you donate all the cities you want to them in regular play, then enter worldbuilder and delete the little city you made before.:D

And, I have yet to test it, but it should be easy to do:)

Don't forget to add nrseven to the list.

yes, a civil war would be an interesting option.....great idea...

count me in to

Regarding unit movement:

Certain units, like the worker and work boat, should probably not be moved by the Military advisor.

Unit Movement, as stated before stays the same, except for the following units. (Note- these units are under FULL control from their corresponding Advisors)

Missionary: Religious Advisor
Worker/Fast Worker/Work Boat: Infrastructure Advisor
Settler: Leader

No...:p That idea was actually HORRIBLE! I had a brainwave while doing dishes...

Say you have X city owned by English>Civil War> You mod the map to add ONE American city somewhere. Doesn't even have to be good, just one somewhere. Then, you donate all the cities you want to them in regular play, then enter worldbuilder and delete the little city you made before.:D

And, I have yet to test it, but it should be easy to do:)

Unless I got alot of disapproval on this, it's staying in! What better way to have the classic 'personal gain vs. civilisation gain':crazyeye:

Also, I think I know what you're on about with the world builder. However, I'm at work, but I'll test it tonight... If we start with 4 Civs... then sometime down the track, one (or more?) of those Civs breaks into a Civil War... can we add another Civ mid-game?

If not... then I may have the solution. I may have to load up the game myself, to get the random terrain thing happening... then map edit it, to make a few islands down, say, on the arctics poles... then place their starting locations there... then have to play their turns continously (literally by doing stuff all), until one of them is needed for a civil war.

count me in to

Wow, the dust of the silly season has settled, and we've now got 28 players. At this rate we'll be starting very shortly.

Yup, we can add Civs mid game...=)

I think anyway, I'll go see.

Yup, we can add Civs mid game...=)

I think anyway, I'll go see.

Well this will be PTBS based (well it better be) PBEM... will it work in a PBEM?

Maybe you could make a different board when it starts...

A different board?

If you still need some players, you can count me in :-)

If you still need some players, you can count me in :-)

We'll always be looking for players. You're in.

how about if 2 nations could join together into a union, sharing a part of the goverment? like the european union. and you could also post some rules concerning civil war.

how about if 2 nations could join together into a union, sharing a part of the goverment? like the european union. and you could also post some rules concerning civil war.

The rules are on their way... it will be in a different post. Well, translated into this game, the European Union could simply be 2 or more nations, with defensive pacts... unfortunately I forsee 2 nations grouping together... if we only have 4 civs, well no doubt the 2 civs not in the union will form their own union, and then we'd simply be left with 2 civs, instead of 4.

I might join in the future, possibly in a week or two.

I might join in the future, possibly in a week or two.

Well, we have 29... only 11 to join... and players will have a definite advantage from the get-go... and the game won't start for another week... and it will take a week or so to decide Civ's/Leaders and the initial elections anyway.

So... JOIN! :crazyeye:

Just what the Doc ordered... or should I say what Doc (from Back to the Future) ordered, and would say when something like this happens..

Great Scott!

Pitboss has (definately) arrived. Refer to the sticky in this section and download it before the game begins, as we'll be playing on v1.52 with PTBS.

Well, we have 29... only 11 to join... and players will have a definite advantage from the get-go... and the game won't start for another week... and it will take a week or so to decide Civ's/Leaders and the initial elections anyway.

So... JOIN! :crazyeye:

Okay then, i will. But only if i have a complete fish as a gift from you. (not really, i'm just practising for diplomacy with my team-mates)

:bump: It's cause i joined that this thread isn't getting any more posts, isnt it. :rolleyes:

What kind of map are we using?

:bump: It's cause i joined that this thread isn't getting any more posts, isnt it. :rolleyes:

Probably :p .. nah this post went dead for a few days while the xmas patch came out... and went dead the day PTBS Beta was released. Which is a good thing, since this game needed PTBS to run properly.

What kind of map are we using?

My preferred map would be Terra. We all start on the same continent... which will allow early diplomacy, and leave some surprises later on this game to keep it fresh, in the form of New World Conquest & Expansion.

Now... I'm thinking of changing the game name... PBEM Enhanced sounds sucky... plus PBEM has a lot of negative feeling, whereas as PTBS is fresh, new and well.. 'Enhanced'. Speaking of which, I want a better word than Enhanced...

Something which captures the essence of this game, in it's Diplomacy, Politics, Espionage.... any ideas?

Been checking out PTBS. 'Enhanced' will be played on the PTBS simultaneous turns format.

Sounds interesting, and I would like to play, but I suppose that I don't understand the mechanics of it... I read your intro posts about the game, but maybe since I don't know what a Democracy game is, I don't undertand this one either.

Does the leader actually log in and do the turn taking, while presenting votes to the others on the forum? Is there a way that the others can log in and look at the map and such? or is there actually some kind-of MOD that allows people to go in and vote on things? What kind-of time investment does being an officer entail?

Sorry about the questions. I've been playing Civ since Civ I, but I've only today joined the Civ online community. I had no idea that my favorite game franchise had such a great community behind it. I wish I'd found it a long time ago.

I don't know what a Democracy game is, I don't undertand this one either.

This isn't Democracy, far from it.

Does the leader actually log in and do the turn taking, while presenting votes to the others on the forum? Is there a way that the others can log in and look at the map and such?

Well, as we all know, each turn begins with any announcements of buildings or units created. The leader will log in, make note of any votes needed (for example, 'x' City has just built a Barracks, now what?)... the leader will put that forth to the other members and the other members, vote.
In the meantime, unit movement can be carried out. The corresponding advisors log in and carry out the actions..

Military Units: Military Advisor
Missionary: Religious Advisor
Worker/Fast Worker/Work Boat: Infrastructure Advisor
Settler: Leader

is there actually some kind-of MOD that allows people to go in and vote on things?

I wish.

What kind-of time investment does being an officer entail?

Typically, not alot. Most advisors will simply need to vote when the time comes. In terms of turn timeframe.. I'm thinking 2 days per turn... should leave enough time for all explained above.

Natually a particular importance falls on the Leaders shoulders. If the Leader is absent, then the Vice Leader must carry out the Leaders action. If the Military, Religious or Infrastructure advisor is absent, then the Leader will carry out unit movements for them, etc, etc.

So for all advisors, the ability to stay in communication and vote when necessary is a must. The more you are absent, the more likely you won't be voted back into term come next elections.

And as explained, particular advisors will be responsible for unit movement.. so they must able to log in once every 2 days.


Welcome aboard, by the way. :)

could there be a way to implement covert actions or terrorism? i think it would be interesting if we could simulate terrorists/freedom fighters. i always wanted to blow something up without anyone knowing, who did it :nuke:

The Pit Boss persistent turn-based server will allow for players to play as long as they like and leave when they like without disrupting the game. Players can also fill in for AI players and join when they like (so it is possible to jump in right in the middle of a game and take an AI's role). The server will download the current game state, then a player takes their turn and the server afterwards saves for the next player. It is like playing a streamlined version of play by e-mail or hot seat multiplayer.

Does everybody need to install/run this, or is it just for the computer running the server?

Okay. Thanks for the explanations. I guess I was a little confused when he said in the first post that it's 'similiar to the Democracy game'.

It sounds like a lot of fun. I'm looking forward to it.

could there be a way to implement covert actions or terrorism? i think it would be interesting if we could simulate terrorists/freedom fighters. i always wanted to blow something up without anyone knowing, who did it :nuke:

Well we won't hit the modern era for quite some time, so perhaps along the way we'll think of something.

Does everybody need to install/run this, or is it just for the computer running the server?

Yes, I believe you will need PTBS installed.

My preferred map would be Terra. We all start on the same continent... which will allow early diplomacy, and leave some surprises later on this game to keep it fresh, in the form of New World Conquest & Expansion.

Now... I'm thinking of changing the game name... PBEM Enhanced sounds sucky... plus PBEM has a lot of negative feeling, whereas as PTBS is fresh, new and well.. 'Enhanced'. Speaking of which, I want a better word than Enhanced...

Something which captures the essence of this game, in it's Diplomacy, Politics, Espionage.... any ideas?

Since the map will be known by all, instead of having the terrain black from the beginning could we start with all terrain visible? (Fog of war would still be in effect)
This would much more comfortable for all, instead of having to switch between the initial map and the actual game map to play all the time.
I think you would only have to open up "Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Assets\XML\Technologies\CIV4TechInfos.xml" and do a replace all changing <bMapVisible>0</bMapVisible> to <bMapVisible>1</bMapVisible> before you create the game.

Since the map will be known by all, instead of having the terrain black from the beginning could we start with all terrain visible? (Fog of war would still be in effect)
This would much more comfortable for all, instead of having to switch between the initial map and the actual game map to play all the time.
I think you would only have to open up "Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization 4\Assets\XML\Technologies\CIV4TechInfos.xml" and do a replace all changing <bMapVisible>0</bMapVisible> to <bMapVisible>1</bMapVisible> before you create the game.

The map will be known by all? How so?

NAME CHANGE!!!

Ok, here's what I've come up with...

Civ 4 Realpolitik
Civ 4 PTB (Powers-That-Be)
Civ 4 Governance

All 3 much better than Enhanced...starting a poll now.

The map will be known by all? How so?

Oops... :blush: Maybe I don't know what terra map is... I though it was a well known earth map. :rolleyes:
By the way, I vote for Civ 4 Realpolitik.

Oops... :blush: Maybe I don't know what terra map is... I though it was a well known earth map. :rolleyes:
By the way, I vote for Civ 4 Realpolitik.

Terra is 2 continents, 1 larger one 'The Old World' is where all Civ's start on.. and it's not until Caravels & especially Galleons arrive when you can attempt to rid the 'New World' of Barbarian states and further expand your empire.

I think it's a great map as it is just another thing to do later on in the game... and keeps things interesting.

Also, if you wish to vote, refer to this poll called PBEM Enhanced Name Change... http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153043

Hopefully we can get a bunch more people to join after this thing starts. The more the merrier. Are there any other civ sites we could do some recruiting?

Hopefully we can get a bunch more people to join after this thing starts. The more the merrier. Are there any other civ sites we could do some recruiting?

I've tried a few times at Civ 4 Apolyton... I don't really know of any other sites. The folks at Apolyton seem a very skeptical bunch.

The rules are only a few days off being published, I want to publish the rules in a new thread with the new name. I've done all the necessary testing on PTBS... so we're almost ready to go. I was hoping for some other sites to get in on this... it would be great if we got 10 from Apolyton... because no doubt they'd all go with the one Civ, which in turn would cause us work together against them.

This is great idea. Please include me as a member and I will vote.

Done Romaneste....

We've had a withdrawal... Swiss Bezerker.. due to time commitments... 1 in, 1 out!

Heres another civ community Evolution Games (http://www.evo-games.net/Home/).

And another 1BigCommunity (http://www.1bcciv.com/)

In fact heres the old official Civ3 site (http://www.civ3.com/fansites.cfm) with links to many civ sites.
The few that I checked were still operating and discussing the new game.

The name change vote is decided, Civ4 Realpolitik is now the game we're a part of.

I've created a new thread with some BIG announcements aptly named Civ4 Realpolitik (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153338).

Can I join?

Sure... good timing, we're about to begin. Have a read through this forum, and the Rules on Evo-Games.... first up, we need a vote via private message to select what Civ Leader you want.