Here's a different twist. Game restraints. Shall we give back captured cities? Disallow pop-rushing? Steal or ransom all tech advances? Outlaw game restraints?

The possibilities are endless. Shall we test the water, or no?

Cant remember where I read it but there was someone who played a Civ3 game Friendly.They wouldn't use ivory or use a tile with whales they also would only attack barbarians if they attacked first. We could also make restraints as we go along, there could be a poor backwards civ that we help with money and techs(or we could take the land off them:mwaha:)

Here's a different twist. Game restraints. Shall we give back captured cities? Disallow pop-rushing? Steal or ransom all tech advances? Outlaw game restraints?

The possibilities are endless. Shall we test the water, or no?

Cant remember where I read it but there was someone who played a Civ3 game Friendly.They wouldn't use ivory or use a tile with whales they also would only attack barbarians if they attacked first. We could also make restraints as we go along, there could be a poor backwards civ that we help with money and techs(or we could take the land off them:mwaha:)
I agree with mickyd47

I've had this in mind for some time. Not sure if it fits better here or as an SG. Seems like a good time to find out. If it fits, fine. If it doesn't fit, that is fine, too.



Maya, Mia!

This is just an updating and semi-redo of MeteorPunch's Succession Game MP6 - a Madman and his Ladies. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=122120) That game never finished but I really liked the concept of it.


The only land units we can have
Settler
Worker
Archer
Berserk
Leader
Army

The Ladies
Egypt
Russia
France
England
Spain
Byzantines

Relationships - this will be updated when the game progresses.
The first we meet becomes our first "crush" (yes, even if it's Catherine). We are too shy to trade with her...ever.
The second becomes our "girlfriend." We trade every tech as one for one deals as long as a trade is available until every civ is met.
The third becomes our "lover." Must be the first civ attacked and conquered. Doesn't make any sense? Neither does love.
Fourth is Wife. Mutual partner, must attempt to ally in wars. Last to get the Axe.
Fifth is the "Ex." Must declare war with no trading on the first turn met.
Lastly "mid-life crisis fling." Give every tech,luxury, and resource for 20 turns.

Going Mad
After a "relationship" ends, must do the following. Number corresponds to relation.
1. Crush. Revolt to Anarchy.
2. Girlfriend. Stop research for 10 turns...need gold for a new girlfriend.
3. Lover. Disbands the capital.
5. Ex. Give the "wife" all your gold. If amount is less than 200, must give 20 gpt.
6. Fling. Raise luxury slider to 50% for 10 turns...it's a party!

Variants
Going for conquest victory.
We are somewhat defiant. No giving into demands, but always give into demands by "crush" and "wife." (unless at war)
A turnlog is not necessary, but report any important events.
Pictures and storytelling encouraged...if you want.

Notes
The Fourth Lady we meet will be the last to die and the Third Lady will be the first to die. The others we will have to decide.

Also, if when we meet the Fifth Lady we are not at war with the Third Lady, we should declare war the Third before we declare on the Fifth.

The capital is disbanded when the Third Lady dies, so we won't build any wonders in it.

In his game MeteorPunch allowed only Archers and Berserks as buildable land based units, in addition to Workers, Settlers, Leaders and Armies. The Mayan UU comes much earlier than the Berserk, which is a replacment for the Longbow (Invention).

To somewhat duplicate that limitation, we won't be able to build any land units past Musket/Rifleman, Cavalry and Cannons. Rifles do not require a resource, so if/when we learn Nationalism they become the default defender build. Cannons can upgrade to artillery, but no artillery can be built. Cavalry are a dead end unit.

Water units and air units have no restricion.

Default Mayan city names are not allowed. Instead, city names must come from the movie Mamma, Mia!. Actors, characters, songs, locations are acceptable, as are 'key' people listed in the credits. If it is in the credits, it can be a city name.

I like. I like. The "Going Mad" part gives it an extra twist. Cavalry and Cannons are kind of stretching it, but I don't mind. We'll need them.

Push it and see how it is accepted. Could be a kick in the pants. Might even bring back Ravensfire. That's a good thing.

The attack barbarians if they attack first and the no pop rushing appeals to me. Dont want to restrict ourselves too much.

CommandoBob's suggestion sure has role playing potential. My guess is it's pretty rulesy for some folks. Would also be interesting on a continents or islands map.

Could we substitute Babylon and still try for a culture victory?

CommandoBob's suggestion seems too risky to me without some serious modifications. Disband the capitol? :eek:

I saw another SG concept called little buddy. The first civ we meet becomes our little buddy, and we have to support that civ in every way possible other than gifting cities. The additional victory condition is that we try to make this civ come in 2nd.

Hey, I like "Little Buddy" also. But I like the "Momma Mia" with a Bablon substitution better. Going for a Culture Victory and dealing with relationships at the same time would be a good test for our government. Even if we had to relocate/disband the Capital. Love - desperate times call for desperate measures. :)

I'd even agree to Continents with "Momma Mia".

The only reason it is Maya, Mia! instead of another civ is only because of the alliteration with Mamma, Mia!. :D It sounded snappy.

With Babylon, the name change could be to Babby, Mia! or Hammy, Mia!. The syllables still fit, even though the alliteration is gone (which isn't that big an issue).

I remember starting to read about that succession game, I would love to try it either as a succession game or here.

CommandoBob's suggestion seems too risky to me without some serious modifications. Disband the capitol? :eek:

Isn't not all that risky if you know from the start you're going to do it. The trouble I see with the suggestion is that it is scripted. It sounds great for a succession game (and perhaps we could go that) but we may want something more flexible for the democracy game. Little brother sounds more flexible. Rather than making the little brother the first one we meet we could pick our opponents and before we start the civ game we could vote on which one will be our little brother or sister. We could also pick a mortal enemy for another twist. We wouldn't know when we'd stumble on our mortal enemy nor when we'd be reunited with our long lost little brother/sister.

This kind of thing could be looked upon as the basis of our story line. The little brother/sister civ is family while the mortal enemy civ has been hated by our people since the dawn of time for some ancient transgression. We could develop a whole mythology here. The game restraints would be always war with mortal enemy and always help little brother/sister. We could develop relations with the others based on what they do. The enemy of our enemy is our friend. Mess with my little brother and you're toast. Etc. Seems flexible, especially with victory conditions though it does eliminate conquest, doesn't it?

I like the idea of the little brother/sister thing and the mortal enemy idea. I think the little brother/sister and enemy should be decided in game. So once we've met most of the Civs we could decide and maybe change at the start of each age.

Wow. I really like the L B/S and ME game too. We have definitely got some cometition here. And some really hard decisions to make. Let's flesh these out a bit more to see if we can find advantages or flaws in each. Man, good job, donsig.

The little Brother/Sister and Mortal Enemy idea would probably work better as a DG, the principles are very simple. I love the ladies idea, but trying to keep track of it in a DG situation would be more complex, it's probably better as a Succession Game. Thinking on whether we would need to have it encoded in our laws, after the DG7 where the 5BC thing was built in I would prefer not to do so now. It makes it just following the law rather than the whole culture of the nation. Could we have a "Vision of Our Nation" type thread where we have all cultural decisions our nation makes - at the start we could maybe just have something like: We are a Civ of culture and aim to dominate the other nations through culture alone (assuming that's how we want to win). We will help our beloved little brother nation of ... in any way we can, while defending us both from our mortal enemies the ... We can come up with names to call these Civs before we know who they are - we just discover what they call themselves when the decision is made on who is little brother and who is the MO. That way we can get the stories going before we know who is who.

Maya Mia sounds fun. How exactly does a relationship end?

CommandoBob's suggestion seems too risky to me without some serious modifications. Disband the capitol? :eek:

I saw another SG concept called little buddy. The first civ we meet becomes our little buddy, and we have to support that civ in every way possible other than gifting cities. The additional victory condition is that we try to make this civ come in 2nd.

What is SG?

SG is a Succession Game where a group of players take turns playing the save. Usually each player plays ten turns then passes the save to the next player.

Maya Mia sounds fun. How exactly does a relationship end?

Looks like the first doesn't end until that tribe is vanquished.
The second can end once all the tribes have been met.
The third must die also, but they must be the first to be eliminated.
The fourth must die, but they are the last to go.
The fifth must die.
The sixth looks like it ony lasts 20 turns.

That's the way it looks to me

You could also do something like set borders on a pangea map. Once all the land has been taken you can't conquer any more land by conquest- only by culture and propoganda :). Conquest could be used to capture a city then weaken there cultural generating buildings then you have to give them back. We could turn the domination victory limit down to make it more even.

We could also play with a set amount of military units, or only a limited amount of gold to fund them with. So many different choices we could play with.

For thses issues, have we got the two main choices of Mamma Mia and Little Brother? What are our other options, some of which have been presented by Mickyd47 and Zearo.

I really like both main scenarios, and I like what donsig and Furiey have suggested for them. Shall we focus on these two viens? And what, if any, other options should go on a poll. Right now (once we get this decided) it looks like two polls. One for the main scenario, and one for other restraints. What say you?

I'd rather develop the way we play the game organically instead of polling it ahead of time. I view the concepts in the thread as ideas for ways to make the game interesting in future events.

I'd rather develop the way we play the game organically instead of polling it ahead of time. I view the concepts in the thread as ideas for ways to make the game interesting in future events.
Well, no scenarios AND no game restraints would be part of the polls. We don't have to go in this direction. We can just play a normal game. But the suggestions have come up and we did explore them. My feeling is they should be polled.

I'd rather develop the way we play the game organically instead of polling it ahead of time. I view the concepts in the thread as ideas for ways to make the game interesting in future events.

I agree to some extent. If we script the DG and put in too many restraints then we only have the technicalities of the civ game and nothing for the democracy game. But, there's nothing wrong with scripting something and having a few built in constraints. Nor is there anything wrong with polling these ahead of time. The little brother/sister thing shouldn't be something we decide as the game goes on. If we're going to try to build a story and national identity that includes a little brother/sister then it makes sense to poll that ahead of time. Friends are chosen but family you are stuck with. We simulate this by determining our little brother/sister before we start the civ game and we live with it throughout the game. We can handpick our sibling or make the choice randomly. But designating one civ to be our eternal friend would spice up the game, give it some character and still allow us to develop organically for the most part.

The same goes for picking a mortal enemy. It would be much better if we made the designation ahead of time and stuck with it all through the game. (Well, until we kill them anyway.) By designating the sibling and enemy ahead of time we won't know when we will meet them, especially if we are on a continents map. With 7 civs total, us, a sibling and an enemy there are still 4 civs left with undetermined relationships. Also, all victory conditions are open to us except for conquest (since we'd never commit fratricide).

Isn't this a nice balance for the civ game, the DG and the role players? Also, by designating a sibling and an enemy we don't have to be held to pre-determined constraints. Deciding the fate of our enemy would be interesting. Do we wipe them from the face of the planet? Raze their cities or absorb them? Do we just make sure they come in last place but leave them alive? Lots of organic development possible.

Now that I've made my pitch I think Cyc was suggesting we have a poll to choose between Mamma Mia, Sibling/Enemy and no set script/constraints. Are you opposed to such a poll DaveShack?

In DG7 we voted for 5BC before the game started and locked it in using a method which was difficult to change. Later, events happened which might have had more interesting results if there had been flexibility. In the end it was an easy finish but few people were left once it became a game of razing every city we captured no matter what.

If this poll doesn't result in something that is inflexible then it would be ok.

In DG7 we voted for 5BC ...

What is 5BC? :confused:

These democracy games have a history of being afraid of what happened in previous democracy games. Political parties were banned in the first [civ3] DG because of something that happened in a previous [civ2] DG. :crazyeye: It seems that since then political parties were tried, failed and are now banned again. I wasn't around for the political party revival but it seems the expiriment involved electing whole slates of candidates which backfired. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about that.) I guess electing a slate of candidates is one definition of political parties but it's not the only one. When I think political parties I think of the system we have in the US. We have parties but still elect people individually. Since we can't have political parties (in this DG) but can have citizen's groups and candidates can run on similar platforms it seems we can still simulate American style political parties even though political parties are banned. Just an example of the silliness we get into in these DGs when we make blanket rules about something that happened in the past without trying to understand how that relates to what we're trying to do now.

So, can someone tell me how the previous vote for 5BC (whatever that is) means we'd have a lousy game now if we pick a sibling we want to protect and be nice to and an enemy we want to see go up in flames? Are these constraints so much as to cause us to not win the civ game? Why would such a game be any more boring than one without any constraints?

I find Mamma Mia's scope large enough to allow quite a bit of fleiblity. The sibling/ArchEnemy concept, although once set is inflexible, may develop to some extent in any traditional game. A rule like no pop rushing may be more inflexible than either scenario. Time may come when we really want to pop rush instead of seeing a city taken away from us.

What I'm not seeing is how either of the scenario concepts could develop organically. As donsig mentioned, we would have to commit beforehand. We could choose sibling/ArchEnemy as the game progressed, but some might choose to take the easy way out. Who wants the easy way out? I want the fun way out. In a game where you are stuck with family or playing to (or responding to) relationships, would be interesting.

We're dealing with a Standard map and probably continents, so it won't be a long lasting game.

donsig, I was never afraid to experiment or express myself in any DemoGame. I pushed the envelope where I could.

5BC stands for 5 Built Cities. You really should go bck and check out the game in the archives. Furiey and Ravensfire were very active in that game. I shoud have stuck with it, but I had personal problem. The Civ was to build only 5 cities. No more than 5 cities built. What's more is that the Civ could only keep one city of all captured from any other AI Tribe. So that was 5 cities built and maybe 6 foreign cities in the Empire at one time. The trick was winning the game with this restriction. That's what DaveShack's point about razing all captured cities was about.

Citizen's groups can push platforms, but can not make their members vote strictly party (citizen's group) line. They discuss and promote their ideas, trying to convince citizens to vote that way, but nothing more.

Voting in game restraints (constraints) will not mean a boring game. Quite the opposite, I'd say looking at these scenarios.

Zulu and India seem a natural Arch-Enemy pair. Maybe too obvious. Now, Shaka and Gandhi as brothers, :eek:

With Isabella as Mommy? :hmm:

And Shaka and Gandhi are trying to win her approval in order to be called My Precious by Mommy so they compete...

Military prowess
Academic smartiness
High-brow cultural events
Being the most popular/most liked
Creating a city for the glory of Mommy

So, can someone tell me how the previous vote for 5BC (whatever that is) means we'd have a lousy game now if we pick a sibling we want to protect and be nice to and an enemy we want to see go up in flames? Are these constraints so much as to cause us to not win the civ game? Why would such a game be any more boring than one without any constraints?


If this poll doesn't result in something that is inflexible then it would be ok.

The inflexibility of DG7 was the problem for me.

If we're allowed to change our minds later, then I'm fine with it.

If we're not allowed to change our minds later, then it depends on how things are going. If it goes bad, I'm less likely to stick around if there's no way to change it. This is just my preference for how to play, nothing more.

Lest you think I'm just playing chicken little -- I think the sibling/enemy one is a good idea. It will probably result in a good game.

Uh, we did leave "Article C - Game Structure" open. This means we could slide a scenario in there with a Constitutional Amendment. This Amendment could include a "bail" clause, OR if it didn't, we could always change the Constitution with an amendment.

You guys learn to be flexible, or I'm gonna tell Isabella...

Citizen's groups can push platforms, but can not make their members vote strictly party (citizen's group) line. They discuss and promote their ideas, trying to convince citizens to vote that way, but nothing more.

And like I said before that's exactly how the political party system works in the US. (Without the campaign contributions of course!)

The inflexibility of DG7 was the problem for me.

If we're allowed to change our minds later, then I'm fine with it.

If we're not allowed to change our minds later, then it depends on how things are going. If it goes bad, I'm less likely to stick around if there's no way to change it. This is just my preference for how to play, nothing more.

Lest you think I'm just playing chicken little -- I think the sibling/enemy one is a good idea. It will probably result in a good game.

As Cyc pointed out even the constitution can be changed. Is it the ease of change you're worried about? In reality the only thing we can't change are the rules of the Civ game. It's not unheard of for siblings to have a falling out nor for mortal enemies to see the light and make peace. We don't necessarily have to play always war with our mortal enemy nor give everything to our sibling the moment we get it. Part of the fun would be deciding just how to deal with the mortal enemy. Do we exterminate them as soon as we can or keep them alive to die a slow and painful death? Or are we the kind of nation that does not kill? We could deal with our mortal enemy in ways without killing him or her. Just remember, if we don't have solid constraints (like always war with our enemy) then there will be disagreements on how to proceed. My experience in the DGs has been that players sometimes forget that in character disagreements are part of the game.

Are we at the point where we can poll the general theme of our constraints? It seems we are not moving along and since it also seems the DG is still stuck to the monthly calender, precious time's a wasting.

I'm up for a poll. But I put a poll up for Land mass a couple of days ago, and only 4 people have voted. What's up with that? :sad:

Off to vote on landmass poll...

i would much rather pick our friends and enemys based on how they treat us in game. what if we choose mongols as our friend and they border us and start with horses and iron, and we dont.

Den we gotta make 'em an offer dey can't refuse...Don'tcha tink?

i would much rather pick our friends and enemys based on how they treat us in game. what if we choose mongols as our friend and they border us and start with horses and iron, and we dont.

What, we couldn't be friends under those circumstances? :confused: Maybe we just don't choose Mongols as our friend, ok?

Picking ONE little brother and ONE mortal enemy before we start still leaves a number of other civs we can decide how to treat based on how they treat us. Choosing our sibling and enemy after we start would be no different than just playing the old fashioned way. We would pick an enemy based on the mechanics of the civ game - just like we base every other DG decision on. If we choose our enemy before hand then he or she is our enemy because we hate their guts for some evil ancient transgression. Likewise we'd treat our little brother with love and affection cause he is family and he's so darn cute how he runs his little country trying to be like us. If our little brother lives right next door and has all the iron and horses, well...

The whole darn point of a game constraint is to challenge us. To handicap us and give the stupid AI a fighting chance. Anyone of us can beat the AI at this game. A team of us playing together can surely overcome a few self imposed and fun hurdles, can't we?

These aberrations/variants would only come into play if we had a city within 3 tiles of a volcano and that volcano erupted.

If we are REL, we change our build in that city to a Worker, rush it that turn (city size permitting) and that Virgin Worker is sacrificed to the volcano. If the build for that city is already a Worker or Settler, then 2 Virgin Workers are required. A Virgin Worker is one that is moved from the city directly to the volcano and does not stop to do any Worker Tasks.

If we are MIL and REL, then we sacrfice 10 slaves to the volcano and the Virgin Workers stuff above is ignored.

If we are SCI, then everyone in that city goes geekish for 10 turns. Everyone is studying, trying to find a way to forecast the volcano and hoping to find a way to tame it.

If we COM, then lots of local businesses start up trying to cash in on the volcano. T-shirts, coffee mugs, wagon/chariot/bus tours, lava based sex enhancers, etc. We would need to add 2 workers/slaves to the city to reflect this influx of people. If the city can't grow any larger quickly, then we hire two taxmen for 10 turns to reflect the new tax revenue from the start-ups.

Not sure how the other traits would handle a volcano.

Nice CB. We could use something like that. I don't think we can script it but if we do end near a volcano we can form a citizens group to push to sacrifice some virgin slaves. But shouldn't we put the virgin worker on the volcano to prevent it from erupting?

Yeah, I like these little variants, also. We should try and find a way to work them in over the stretch of games. But not hardcode them. They do spice up a game.

A Poll has been started here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7786818&postcount=1)