Below are the starting criteria for the Civ 3 Game of Democracy 2 game. Individual options may be debated and altered via poll prior to the start of the first turn 0 (game startup).

Civilization: GERMANY

Civilization Name: FANATIKA

World Size: HUGE

Difficulty Level: EMPEROR

Land tYPE: RANDOM

Temperature: RANDOM

Climate: RANDOM

World age: RANDOM

Barbarian Level: RANDOM

Options to enable: ALL EXCEPT "RESTART AI" CIVS AND "ACCELERATED PRODUCTION"

Rivals' Civilizations: RANDOM

Number of AI civs: 15

Have a mod create a game: NO

Edit civ stats: NO

woh cool this is gonna be fun

Originally posted by BCLG100
woh cool this is gonna be fun

Oh yea :cooool:

Is this the new discussion area for how/when the Demogame2 should be done?

im not sure you could create a new thread

@Cyc - Yes. These are the default criteria. You can debate elements right here if you'd like to spark a change in them.

okay well heres a little bit of a debate could we not have random map type as this might end up with us on an archipelegio map which would cut down the goverment positions a lot especially mayors and governers

also just checking but are we using the 1.29 patch?

@BCLG100 - I have to say yes to the 1.29v question.

@shaitan - I understand about the options listed above being open for discussion. My question deals more with the "Creation Day" game origins. We have a fairly good debate going in the last forum, should this thread thread be used to continue "Creation" discussions or should another thread be started?

That same discussion should continue. We can move that thread into this forum if you'd like as it is definitely appropriate to this game.

@BCLG100 - Yes, the new game will be started on the current patch level unless is is overruled through discussion/polling.

What is the correct adjective? I thought that some were saying we would be 'Fanatikers.' Or will we be Fanatikans?

I would prefer "FANATIKAANS" ;-) Though this sounds more like south-african.

FANATIKER would be the right german word for "fanatics"
and
FANATISCH SEIN would be for "to be fanatic"
FANATISCHE WELT would be "fanatic world"

but we should not do real german there, just vary the german original i would say ;-)

http://dict.leo.org/?search=&searchLoc=0&relink=on&spellToler=std&sectHdr=off&cmpType=relaxed&lang=en

;-)
LEO englisch-german dictionary.

For those of you who are wondering how and when the Demogame II will start, there is a new Discussion thread, it's located here - Game Creation Day (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=30302)

Please go and voice your opinion.

Originally posted by disorganizer
I would prefer "FANATIKAANS" ;-) Though this sounds more like south-african.

FANATIKER would be the right german word for "fanatics"
and
FANATISCH SEIN would be for "to be fanatic"
FANATISCHE WELT would be "fanatic world"

but we should not do real german there, just vary the german original i would say ;-)

I suggest "Fanatiki", which isn't german, but is better than Fanatikers.

Fanatikaners?

Fanatikaneri? Fanatik?

What about FANATIKS?
a anglizism, but still with german touch ;-)

Fanatiks sounds fine to me.

I like Fanatikaneri or Fanatikaans over Fanatiks (no spice to it, imho). On the plus side though, it's easy to spell :)

I think we should reconsider our world size. I would prefer a smaller world size for several reasons:
Restrictive - An oversized world will restrict some people from running for Pres or being able to play as Designated Player.
Length - Game one lasted over 5 months. I think that was just about perfect. Game length on larger worlds is exponentially longer. Playing on a huge world could easily take several years of real life. In my opinion this is far too long.
Fallout - The end of the game tends to be less exciting and that transferred to our Demo game too. People floated away, things weren't discussed, etc. The end of the game on a larger map will make this closing period much longer.
My preference for a demo world is a standard sized map. Large may be tolerable. Huge should be right out.

Comments?

I like that, Shaitan. I motion for that motion to be put in motion.

May I add that some people's PC's can not handle huge maps well?

Originally posted by chiefpaco
May I add that some people's PC's can not handle huge maps well?
That's what I meant in "restrictive". I don't have this problem anymore but just a month and a half ago I would have had massive problems just trying to open a huge world save.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Length - Game one lasted over 5 months. I think that was just about perfect. Game length on larger worlds is exponentially longer. Playing on a huge world could easily take several years of real life. In my opinion this is far too long.

Comments?

Not nessecarily. Emporer and Deity levels tend to go faster. Games could be finished between 1400AD-1600AD.

I've noticed a pattern of endgame dates too. (give or take 100 'years)

Deity - 1400AD
Emporer - 1550AD
Monarch - 1800AD
Regent - 1950AD
Warlord - 2050AD
Chieftain - 2050AD+

(It's almost 50-100 turns for each).

True, time goes faster on the higher levels but map size has a far greater time factor. The number of turns decreases with higher difficulty but the amount of time per turn increases significantly with larger map sizes.

Originally posted by chiefpaco
May I add that some people's PC's can not handle huge maps well?

I know mine ran fine one a large world map (demogame I) (384 MEGs of RAM), but I haven't tried it on a huge map. The start of the game has a 2-5 second delay (better than when I had 128 MEGs of RAM - 15-20 second delay). I'm not sure how it will be (especially with 16 civs) once the modern era comes. :)

Originally posted by Chieftess
I'm not sure how it will be (especially with 16 civs) once the modern era comes. :)
It'll be ugly. You need a half way modern monster to run a huge map with 16 civs.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Game one lasted over 5 months. I think that was just about perfect.

Actually, I think it was 4 1/2 months, which I think is far too short. I would be much happier with a game running 9 months or so, as it would give the chance for discussion/rpg/and the interaction that is the true game play of the demo game to occur.

True the Prez in later turns may need to be someone with a whompin machine, but since they are required to follow the will of the people (bless our greasy little hearts) then I have no problem with that.

Is there any way we can slightly shink the map? Perhaps a new poll would convince people to shink it. It might not matter since we could still wind up in an archipeligo with 80% water...

Traditioally, in huge games for myself, it takes about 2 minutes for all the AI to finish their first turn.

Well, the demogame was played on a large map. How did it effect Grey Fox and Donsig? I known when I had 128 megs, it was a bit slower (at about the time Justinian was attacked. :)). But, now with 384 megs of RAM, it's pretty quick, even with 300+ AI units running around.

It's still not as bad as the modern era in Civ2. ;) 30 minutes if you knew the AI unit posistions (if they were viewable)! (and that was with only 64 megs!). But, it was still about 30-60 seconds without (for all of them to finish)

Another idea is to edit the bic to allow 16 civs on a large or standard map size. This should speed up gameplay a bit.

Feedback on the size seems fairly evenly mixed. I'm not going to pursue a poll myself but if somebody else feels differently please feel free to do so.

Do I post a poll in the poll section, or will this go elsewhere?

@croxis - It would go in the polls forum. You might want to read the polling standards (http://www.civfanatics.net/~demogame/constitution_of_phoenatica.htm#COS-F) before you post it though. It saves time and hassle in the long run, trust me :)

Yes, you can post a poll in the poll forum. The options should be Large, Huge and Abstain as Large and Huge are the options in contention.