Hi everybody!

The german civ3-Community of www.civforum.de is small, but still there.
In a few weeks we want to start our seventh Civ3-DG and we think playing with one or two more teams will be much more fun.

So are you still big enough to manage a big game as a DG?
Have you enough active players for one or two teams?
The german civforum wants to start the game with two or three teams so together it'll be a great and fascinating game.

I'll stay here for contact, or you come over for a visit. Writing in english will be no problem, if your german ist worse than my english ;)

Have a nice day
kH

I've opened a thread just for U: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69387

I'd definitely be interested in your IntersiteDG. I'll check out your prior games.

I'm not sure how many people we can round up from Civfanatics, but I'll give it a try. Our last "in house" game started really well, but dwindled down to just a few at the end.

Danke for stopping by.

Hi Cyc. Thx for the quick reply.

We also know this problem of course.
Our hope lays in the "hard core", as we say, people who play civ3 everyday till today and who will still gonna play it in five years.
Of course there is ciV now, but I think if you stay with civ3 the last years, you'll always stay with it.

The question is how big is your "hard core". For a DG there should be 3 "lead-player" per team, I'ld think, and of course a group of further discussant.

I've never played DG before, but after reading a couple of pages of the rules, it looks like this is even more time consuming than an 8-player PBEM, isn't it? Governments, elections, discussion threads, polls -- all that extra overhead before you finally get to the game itself.

I've just posted again on my challenge thread (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=68934) on civforum.de. Let me sum up the quintessence of the discussions over there so far:

A series of 1-1 duels might be quick to play and not much time effort, but they definitely lack the rich inter-human diplomacy, so basically most players agree by now, that that would be not much fun
A big 8-player PBEM with 4 participants from each forum did not find their approval, because it "might take 3 years to complete". Personally I have no problem with that (I will definitely still be playing Civ3 in 3 years time...) and one advantage would be that even people with a limited amount of time would be able to play 1 turn per week and could therefore participate.
As a compromise I suggest something like an "Intersite Succession Game". What I mean by this is: each forum defines two teams of let's say 4 players. The players of a team discuss their strategy and next actions in their team thread, and the 4 players rotate like in an SG, playing let's say 10 turns before handing control over to the next player. (So we'll have the "democracy aspect".) Furthermore there will of course intense diplomatic relations be going on between the 4 teams. (So we will also have the "diplomacy aspect".)

I think in your second to last sentance you mean between the "2" teams.EDIT: Never mind, just re-read your post. You are talking an 8 player game.

This sounds great to me. It would be just as if we were playing a Democracy game, but without all the "overhead", as you call it, of one. Any human involvement in a progressive C3C game would be good for me. It doesn't not matter to me what label we put on it.

I like the Intersite SG idea best, to, as Lanzelot says, cut down the overhead of a full demogame. I have barely enough time for the 2 SGs I am in, so a highly involved game would be too much to handle. Mark me down as highly interested.

Very cool. Thank you, TO. Your participation will be will help us immensely.

I am very interested in a team game that is between 2 sites, this is something I've wanted for some time now.

I have never moved outside of general pbem games but use elements above this level like detailed strategies, diplomacy and RPG elements which I very much enjoy but I've never looked at SG and DG games because of the extra details I believe are involved.

I busy myself by playing many games at the same time which has caused me not to learn the details of these types of games, but I will try to look at other games and see what might be required of me.

I will subscribe here because I am interested, hopefully we can come up with a game type that leans more toward getting the turn around than mega discussions before play is actually preformed.

Honestly I don't have the time to read an entire thread to learn about these types of games but If someone could point me to a single post that has a good example on it I would appreciate it.
Thanks for the invite!
Eclipse

Rather than send you somewhere else, I can give you an explanation of the two game types (DemoGame and Succession Game) right here.

Democracy Game ~ Simply put, a Demogame is a game where a group of people discuss and poll the actions of the game. In this possible Intersite DemoGame, Civfanatics would be one nation and our friends in Germany would be a different nation in the same world. We would choose who we wanted for our president (and play the turns) by running an election poll. Germany would do the same for their nation. In fact, more polls are usually held for government offices like the Military Advisor, the Domestic Advisor, etc. So that eventually, all the Advisor positions in a real C3C game would be reflected in the Demogame. Each Advisor would make suggestions (or give Instructions) to the President before he manually played the turns on his computer. These suggestions/Instructions would be put together from demands and requests made by all the other "citizens" of the nation. An Advisor may even use polls to gather info from the citizens. Advisor/President election polls are usually held every month of the game, which can last 5 to 7 months when played in house. An Intersite Demogame woud take much longer unless it was a very small map.

When the President (sometimes called the Designated Player - DP) plays the turns, detailed notes and screenshots would be taken to help explain to the citizens the flow of the game in almost real time. So the citizens can't actually play the game, but can follow it closely with these blow-by-blow details and screenshots. Normally 5 - 10 turns are played in a turn session and then discussion ensues about the state of the nation and the direction the populace would like to see it go in. A turn session may stop abruptly if another nation declares war or some other event (like someone makes us an offer we can refuse) occurs that needs discussion by the citizens/Advisors.

All these rules (and more) are usually put into a Constitution, where anyone can read them and learn how to play the game properly. In many Demogames we've even had a Justice Department (a Supreme Court, if you will) to help the nation determine how to proceed in making decisions for the future or if someone has broken the Law.

That's about it for the DG.

Succession Game ~ Simply put, an SG can be compared to a PBEM, only several people all play the same nation at around 10 turns a clip. On going discussions would take place about the details of the game and the group of people that make up the team and play 10 turns before passing the game onto the next in line would/or can use these discussions to determine their move decisions. So overall, the progression of the game reflects the playing abilities and strategies of everyone who plays, in one way or the other.

As mentioned above, less overhead than a Demogame, although there is less control by the populace and in my opinion, less fun, as there are no elections or government offices. But on the other hand, this may be the way to go as an organization.

Hope that helped.

Thank you that helped and I'm in!
I'm leaning towards Demogame but DO NOT count this as a vote for what we do here because the SG game sounds good too!

I we be watching as this unfolds and will play either type.

note;
Both types sound like resulting in improving my gaming of other types

Hi everybody!

The german civ3-Community of www.civforum.de is small, but still there.
In a few weeks we want to start our seventh Civ3-DG and we think playing with one or two more teams will be much more fun.

This sounds like a Multi Team Demo Game, but I'm not sure. The definitions of a DG may differ between the two sites.

This sounds like a Multi Team Demo Game, but I'm not sure. The definitions of a DG may differ between the two sites.

That's exactly what it is, CB. The people at CivForum.de are devoted DG players. I can tell by reading their posts. They want to get a seventh DG started, but thought they might try this Intersite approach first. I am looking for CivFanatic players. If we can recruit enough to make two teams, so much the better. That will give people, who may feel differently abut the rule(s) another avenue to go down. CivForum is also trying to put together more than 1 team, but they are having difficulty also.

Just think, if we could approach the game with 1 team from the MTDG and one team from the classic DemoGame people, they would not stand a chance. Please consider joining this effort, CB. We'd love to have you, as well as the people from the Council. Heck, you guys almost beat Saber several times in the last few months. We had to double-time just to get the upper hand.

Any input or participation you can muster would be great. I know you're a busy man.

That's exactly what it is, CB. The people at CivForum.de are devoted DG players. I can tell by reading their posts. They want to get a seventh DG started, but thought they might try this Intersite approach first. I am looking for CivFanatic players. If we can recruit enough to make two teams, so much the better. That will give people, who may feel differently abut the rule(s) another avenue to go down. CivForum is also trying to put together more than 1 team, but they are having difficulty also.

Just think, if we could approach the game with 1 team from the MTDG and one team from the classic DemoGame people, they would not stand a chance. Please consider joining this effort, CB. We'd love to have you, as well as the people from the Council. Heck, you guys almost beat Saber several times in the last few months. We had to double-time just to get the upper hand.

Any input or participation you can muster would be great. I know you're a busy man.
Another MTDG playing alongside the friends and foes of MTDG 2 and a chance to meet some Civ-addicts in Germany? Count me in.

Another MTDG playing alongside the friends and foes of MTDG 2 and a chance to meet some Civ-addicts in Germany? Count me in.

Me too....

Although I am German, I am a long time member of CivFanatics...

Welcome Calis. Glad you're with us. I wasn't sure if you were a CivForum member or not. We are on our way to Victory.

Welcome Calis. Glad you're with us. I wasn't sure if you were a CivForum member or not. We are on our way to Victory.

Oh, I have been lurking in the civForum for about a month now and there are some really excellent players over there!

CivFanatics needs to get its best players to be competitive...

EDIT: Never mind, just re-read your post. You are talking an 8 player game.


Well, actually I'm talking about a "16 player game"... Plus optionally 4 AIs.

The format I had in mind is:

Setup a PBEM game with 4 human-controlled civs (and optionally 4 AI civs)
Each human-controlled civ is played by a team of players, so we have 4 teams (e.g Civforum A, Civforum B, Civfanatics A, Civfanatics B)
Each single team consists of 4 players, who discuss their strategy among them and rotate like in a succession game.


Of course each team may decide for themselves, how the part "who discuss their strategy among them" looks like for them. If one team wants to run this in DG-style, it's fine; if another team doesn't have that much time, they could as well keep the in-team discussions to a minimum and run it in lean SG-style.

A DG-style team could even have more than 4 players. However, I would prefer a format, where every team member will get the chance to play his/her share of turns. "Only" disscussing and voting would be a bit boring for me...

:)
Ok, I meant an eight nation game. Sorry.

Yes, what you describe match my thoughts of late. The idea of getting an democracy game of old still flickers in the back of my mind occasionally, but I do realize those days are gone. The game heading this main forum proved that. I can still be a part of a streamlined DG or succession game whichever the team I'm on chooses to go with.

I'm here and ready to help get this thing under way. I count seven players, including myself, as Mof Jerjerrod says he'd like to play also. Let's hope we get more.

Looks fun, I'll play.

If Lanzelot will explain me by e-mail what this discussion is about I probably will take part.
My expectation is that my Civ 3 "modarate addiction" will continue few years more.

Back here after a few days, it looks great for an ISDG.
@Lancelot: Your suggestion is not as bad as I first thought. If there aren't enough players for a "real democratic game" a team could of course act as you propose. Though most of the german players really want to discuss :D If there is a team who'll give one player the full power for several turns, why not? I'ld be the last person to stop that, particularly if it would lead to an additional team.

AI by the way would be frowned upon, because of their behaviour. I don't think that there will be much chance to play with them.

I just started a first poll about the landform, perhaps you would like to give us your thoughts.
Have a nice day
kH

Forgot the Link to the poll: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69549

I have sent a notification to a few more GOTM/SGOTM veterans, who are still active.

Calis: I'm sure there are also a couple of strong HoF veterans who might be interested in playing this. Could you send a notification to them as well?

In order to get an overview I started a list of players willing to play for the Civfanatics teams (in order of their appearance in this thread):

(Moved the list to page 4.)

I will keep this list updated, as more players turn up here. Perhaps we'll be able to man as many as three teams?! :goodjob:

Lanzelot

I already contacted the one or the other guys. We'll have to wait.

Thanks to Calis and Lanzelot for inviting me.

I have some interest, but my time for this game will be very limited. Experience with multiplayer team games has shown that there are a LOT more people who express interest than there are who stick with the game all the way through. I would be very careful about making the teams too small.

Thanks to Calis and Lanzelot for inviting me.

I have some interest, but my time for this game will be very limited. Experience with multiplayer team games has shown that there are a LOT more people who express interest than there are who stick with the game all the way through. I would be very careful about making the teams too small.

Important point I think.
Don't be too enthusiastic, if you really get two teams this would be more than we'ld have expected.

It is simply the truth what Chamnix says, but the people in the list above are people I trust to participate till the end.

But anyhow, more than two teams would not be good IMO. In case of absence, there needs to be a sub turn player at least.

:) Welcome Chamnix, Bowsling, I. Larkin, and Templar X. Things are looking up.

I believe what we have now is good for two teams.

Hey guys,

as an owner of a fresh copy of Civ 5 :drool: I'll not join this party for now.

Although as a part time member of the civforum I'll lurk occasionally.

Have fun,
Paul

Hello again! I'm very gald that there are some guys here also understanding german and who are already active at the civforum (I thinking of Calis and Lanzelot). Perhaps they can help a little bit to communicate between the two sites.

I think we can now count on four teams, two Fanatics and two by the german civforum.
The next step imo is to mix the two traditions of former DGs. When different teams play together there of course must be some (or more) rules. Because of our former six DGs "our" rules have been grown up and adjusted several times. Before giving them to you in english, I'ld like to have a look on your DG-rules if there are some. How do you play your former DGs?
Comparing these rules would fast lead to a "rulebook" for both websites, I think.

For the ones who can read and understand german here our rules of the last DG: http://www.civforum.de/showpost.php?p=2979496&postcount=1

And there is an other important thing: We need a referee. There already is a guy wants to make referee for the civforum, but we think it would be right to have a secound one out of you guys. I hope we can find him.
Mean work imo for the referees would be making the map and controlling the turns, especially if there is a saveerror or something like that. For detailed things we can talk when it's time for that. Or you just ask, if you have questions.

I will try to have a look and compare the CFC MTDG rules with the CivForum ones...

I will try to have a look and compare the CFC MTDG rules with the CivForum ones...
Can you translate the CivForum DG rules to English, please? I read them but, Ich nix spreche Deutsch. So, as far as rules go, I'd have to take a pretty wide berth. With lots of wiggle room.

Can you translate the CivForum DG rules to English, please? I read them but, Ich nix spreche Deutsch. So, as far as rules go, I'd have to take a pretty wide berth. With lots of wiggle room.

Sir, yes, Sir :salute:

:)

Find the translation here: post #35

http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69387&page=3

Thank you, Calis. Parade Rest....

Read translation. Thanks, Calis. But I did not understood simple thing: what kind of game "teams" play? Any AI? Or like team PBEM?

It will be a team PBEM. 4 teams. Civfanatics 2 teams will probably based on an SG style, but one may lean more towrds DG. It will be pretty much like all the Multi-Team Demo Games. Only this will also be a Multi-Site Game.

if anyone is interested I found that had this and didn't know it. I went to the german Forum hmm its in german LoL but after clicking on my toolbar I found that the page translated in a few seconds in English. it magic.

Thanks, Eclipse!

4. Diplomacy and communication between teams/players is not allowed before meeting in game.
and
5. Exchange of techs and joint research plans are allowed.
How to control 4? Looks that it contradict to 5.
Also what victory condition will be? How victory determined at all?

Victory is determined when the game ends. You can't do 5 until you meet the other team "in the game".

It looks like there will be two CFC teams. Each team will oppose the other and will have to choose their Victory Condition independantly.

Cyc
Lanzelot
TheOverseer714
Eclipse4449
CommandoBob
Calis
Mofjerjerrod
Bowsling
I. Larkin
templar_x (will lend a hand in an SG-type team)
Chamnix (part-time substitute?!)


I will keep this list updated, as more players turn up here. Perhaps we'll be able to man as many as three teams?! :goodjob:

Lanzelot
If i have enough time, i would play with some of the warmongers.

How to control 4? Looks that it contradict to 5.
Also what victory condition will be? How victory determined at all?

It's a question of trust. It is not allowed, we are all adults, we respect the rules and we wanna win/play a fair game. There is no need to control it. Although there will be referees to have a look on it. They can see all the postings made by a team and can possibly find hints of pre-meet-contacts. Though I don't think it'll be necessary.

@victory conditions: Every victory condition will be activated and possible. So it's the choice of the teamhow they wanna win. In general it's a military win by destroying the other three civs. ;)

It may not be necessary, but I suggest diplomatic win be disabled as a victory condition.

If i have enough time, i would play with some of the warmongers.

I added you to the list.

Good to have you on our side...! :goodjob:
(I saw that you are also a long-time member of civforum.de and wasn't sure whether you would want to play for us or for them...)

It's a question of trust. It is not allowed, we are all adults, we respect the rules and we wanna win/play a fair game. There is no need to control it. Although there will be referees to have a look on it. They can see all the postings made by a team and can possibly find hints of pre-meet-contacts. Though I don't think it'll be necessary

I disagree with that. Starting turns are important and need to be discussed within the team. Probably for the team who played long time togetehr it is OK, but for the first experience I propose to remove restriction 4. Also, to speed up process initial turns could be done by one member of team for his team mates.

I disagree with that. Starting turns are important and need to be discussed within the team. Probably for the team who played long time togetehr it is OK, but for the first experience I propose to remove restriction 4. Also, to speed up process initial turns could be done by one member of team for his team mates.

#4 doesn't restrict intra-team discussion about anything. #4 does restrict inter-team discussion about tech trading, locations, alliances, plots, etc until you've met in-game.

So you can discuss anything with your teammates anytime you want. No restrictions. But don't discuss or trade anything important with another team or player from another team (who doesn't officially represent the team).

As far as your last sentance, I believe the SG players will probably just give the save to a team member and let him play 10 turns, then that player will turn the reins over to another player on the team. Whereas, the DG players may want to discuss the best opening moves as the game initially progresses.

I want to bring up the question of referees. Civforum have chosen justanick as referee. I am not sure who could be a referee from CFC. But the question is, whether we need two referees. I'd trust justanick to be the only referee. What do you guys think?

I take it justanick will not be a player on either of the CivForum teams. If so, fine by me.

Victory is determined when the game ends. You can't do 5 until you meet the other team "in the game".

It looks like there will be two CFC teams. Each team will oppose the other and will have to choose their Victory Condition independantly.

Little bit confused with terminology: how many teams?
What is "team"? (At this game?) How many civs one team posess? How communication IBT teams, players, referee will be organized?

4 teams.

2 teams per website.

Each team will have maybe 5-6 players.

Each team will choose and play 1 civ.

No communication between teams or another player from another team before you meet that/their team in game.

Most of the rules and procedures still have to be discussed and written down.

Look at the lower half of the page at this link for information on the German website CivForum. (http://www.civforum.de/forumdisplay.php?f=288)

Look at the lower half of the page at this link for information on the German website CivForum. (http://www.civforum.de/forumdisplay.php?f=288)
However, don't outsmart yourself, like I did. :D

At the bottom of page, just like on ours, is a drop down for languages. Leave it at ' - German (Du- Version)'. If you set to English, Google will not translate the page for you. The navigation will be in English, but the individual threads and posts will still be in German.

Little bit confused with terminology: how many teams?
What is "team"? (At this game?) How many civs one team posess? How communication IBT teams, players, referee will be organized?
Cyc has already answered, but I'll try to make it a bit more clear (hehe, and this with my worse english :D).

Team is meant to be a bunch of players who play together the same civilization. Making a plan for the micromanagement, discuss with the other teammembers the best diplomatic options and trying to find the right words for the best negotiations or just bribe me with flowers... for at least the masterplan: Wining the game. Just as an example, there are more options to win the game. Like conquest the world or betray* our diplomatic allies and overrun then.
The simple different between any generic PBEM and DG is the amount of players per civilization. And they all 'play' at the same time, not just one person alone (or switching after x turns). The complete team plays. But sure, most teammembers will get into some mainroles like "diplomatic", "micromanagement" etc. I think (did'nt check *hides*) this won't be a real different between DGs at CivFanatics and CivForum.

Reason for DGs: PBEM is like a dictatorship. One person rule the civilization and do whatever he think. On a DG the person who make the turns plays what the team has decided. And at best, the plan is detailed as every person can make the turn. This is maybe one important point, at our CivForum DGs we play with a timelimit. But I'm not sure how this will be organized with the savestats trading and the timelimits (if we will have some?) because for our Forum we have a bot who manage it. Maybe we can talk to the owner of the bot for synchronizing it with CivFanatics?

No communication between teams or another player from another team before you meet that/their team in game.
Just to be sure: No communication between teams or another player from another team about the game before [...] ;) I don't want to miss some smalltalk with peoples who can stand my crappy english. :mischief:

* Yeah, betray or not betray, that is the question. But more a question about our rules we will have. How about your DGs here at CivFanatics? Any diplomatic negotiation is set? Or not? Personally I like it more if there is always the option to betray someone. Most players don't want and don't do it, yes. But the simple option makes the diplomatic more interesting at all.
Hm. Do you have any current rule book for DGs? I'm not sure about the The Democracy Game Constitution - The Ruleset (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=309558). It sounds a little bit for a team(players) against ai only? Or I'm wrong?

By the way, Hello all! ;O

Welcome Masqurin,

First of all, let me say I love the waistline on the pointy-eared redheaded avatar you use. Judging from your Civfanatics avatar's gender, I don't feel bad saying that.

All of the Civ3 Demogames were played against the AI. The human team vs 6 or so AI civs. The Constitutions were written for the procedures the humans used to progress through the game in an orderly manner. Some people wanted no rules. Chaos on a Helter Skelter level. But sanity prevailed and rules won. If you want to read a REAL Constitution, go to the Archives and read the one for DemoGame II.

Sorry I wasn't very clear with my description of a DemoGame. You are correct, it's a group of people who come together to form a small democratic government that governs a civ. In the games we had, elections were held, threads were put up for Office functions, lots of polling on issues ranging from city placement to which turn war should be declared, to which tech to research next. We had turn chats, Instruction threads, Reports, the works. PLUS we always tried to spark up some kind of RPG to coincide with the DemoGame.

We would try to have the turn sessions every three days and fill the time in between with discussion and polls. Two turn sessions a week seemed to be the way to go. But that was all subject to change depending on participation of the DG citizens.

For me, Demogames were great fun, but not enough people feel the same as I do. Oh well. Glad to see you here at CFC.

Betrayal must be allowed. Not that it is my favorite option at any time, but if it's not allowed it limits diplomacy options too much.

I'd love to join this. Long live the Fanatics!

First of all, let me say I love the waistline on the pointy-eared redheaded avatar you use. Judging from your Civfanatics avatar's gender, I don't feel bad saying that.
Thanks! Some days and postings more before I can change to my avatar. So long I'll stay with Theodora, because I like the good old Ancient Egypt alot.

We would try to have the turn sessions every three days and fill the time in between with discussion and polls. Two turn sessions a week seemed to be the way to go. But that was all subject to change depending on participation of the DG citizens.
Yes, we do the same. Before we get the the new savestate, the micromanagement is already done (if it's not already planned 20+ turns ahead). Just at war, the time is important - because you can't know what's the other team realy doing. But my question was more about the organization at all for trading the savestats and handling the timelimits. Hm, I may ask at CivForum about this.

For me, Demogames were great fun, but not enough people feel the same as I do. Oh well. Glad to see you here at CFC.
Same here. But to many players had gone ahead for more graphical civilization games. Or just started with it and never played Civilization III. All the 3D is to much confusing me, so I don't play CivIV/V (yay, CivIV+ players don't know about wasting production/food). For DGs it's often not a problem to find peoples, just to hold then for a longer time. The beginning of the game is for most players the most fun, but if there is no more expansion and all going into war, some players disappear. Not sure if this is here the same, but for all: What's one reason we want some more (4+) players per team, just to be sure there is always someone to make turns at least (and the better if there is also some to discuss with).

I'd love to join this. Long live the Fanatics!

Added you to the list! :goodjob:

4 teams.

2 teams per website.

Each team will have maybe 5-6 players.

Each team will choose and play 1 civ.

No communication between teams or another player from another team before you meet that/their team in game.

Most of the rules and procedures still have to be discussed and written down.

Look at the lower half of the page at this link for information on the German website CivForum. (http://www.civforum.de/forumdisplay.php?f=288)
Is it game 2 teams vs 2 teams?
What initial information about map, civs, Barbs will be available?
What is "game session"? Four entries from each team? And how many (astronomical) time team will have for discussion?

I'd be willing to step in and give thoughts to a team, but I have found that I'm a totally unreliable MTDG player.

One thing I found from the Civ III MTDG is that island invasions are not easy against human opponents, so I suggest that there are ground rules. The Civ III game really ground to a halt.

Perhaps we can do a variation where some more units can make amphibious attacks, or we rule out blocking a coastline but also rule out landings on anything but flat land (no marsh, jungle, hills, mountains or forests - we would need a rule about not planting forests on coast)

basically, allow invasions, but give the defenders a pretty large advantage, I dunno. Course, if it's a pangea or a continents map, then we can pretty much ignore that...

Is it game 2 teams vs 2 teams?
What initial information about map, civs, Barbs will be available?
What is "game session"? Four entries from each team? And how many (astronomical) time team will have for discussion?

Did you go to the German site and use a translator?

It will be one game with 4 teams opposing each other. The team winning by the first Victory Condition (which ever that may be - possible 4 VCs) will be the winner. Every team for themselves.

The map may be small or larger, but it looks like it will be Pangaea or Continents. Civs may be restricted to those that do not have a Ancient Age UU. No info on Barbs.

A game session is like a turn chat or a time where the primary (designated) Player plays the turns for the team. It usually ranges 5 - 10 turns. These game sessions advance the turns of each individual team. Sooo, each team will have the own individual turn sessions. They will either be private (1 person playing alone) or they will be a turn chat (1 person playing in a chatroom with other team members there to advise the DP).

Each Team can have as many or as few teammates as they want, as long as someone always plays the save and passes it along. The time allowed for discussing and playing the save is being discussed on the CivForums. Check them out. It appears there will be a time buffer (measured in days) for each team. If you exceed the allowed time, a ref will click through your save and pass it to the next player.

Hope that helped. Check out the link above.

I'd be willing to step in and give thoughts to a team, but I have found that I'm a totally unreliable MTDG player.

One thing I found from the Civ III MTDG is that island invasions are not easy against human opponents, so I suggest that there are ground rules. The Civ III game really ground to a halt.

Perhaps we can do a variation where some more units can make amphibious attacks, or we rule out blocking a coastline but also rule out landings on anything but flat land (no marsh, jungle, hills, mountains or forests - we would need a rule about not planting forests on coast)

basically, allow invasions, but give the defenders a pretty large advantage, I dunno. Course, if it's a pangea or a continents map, then we can pretty much ignore that...

You may be more suitable for the DemoGame style game, that is not as pressing on the individual players. You are not asked to play the save on a regular basis, just to help discuss the options regarding movement, techs, trades, etc. The team President (Designated Player - DP) is responsible for playing the save for the whole team. The term for the President usually lasts a month, but that's not written in stone. In fact the Prez can ask anyone to step in for him/her at anytime (but the Prez is still responsible for anything that happens).

As far as land mass, see above. It looks like Pangaea or Continents. I believe the silly islands are out!

After thinking about the way I described game sessions, I. Larkin, I see how it may still be confusing. I described it on the prior page as this:

A game session is like a turn chat or a time where the primary (designated) Player plays the turns for the team. It usually ranges 5 - 10 turns. These game sessions advance the turns of each individual team. Sooo, each team will have their own individual turn sessions. They will either be private (1 person playing alone) or they will be a turn chat (1 person playing in a chatroom with other team members there to advise the DP).

What I described above is a normal Demogame (1 human team against the AI) on any one website. This intersite game will be a 4 team PBEM. It's just that the teams will have 5-6 (maybe more) players on a team. Each game session will be 1 (count 'em one) turn each. And then they will be emailed to the next team (or posted on the LemmingsBot page, or both!). Hopefully, it's a little easier to understand with this additional paragraph.

After thinking about the way I described game sessions, I. Larkin, I see how it may still be confusing. I described it on the prior page as this:

This intersite game will be a 4 team PBEM. It's just that the teams will have 5-6 (maybe more) players on a team. Each game session will be 1 (count 'em one) turn each. And then they will be emailed to the next team (or posted on the LemmingsBot page, or both!). Hopefully, it's a little easier to understand with this additional paragraph.
Yes, I anticipated something like this. If 1 turn will take 2-8 days it is 3 years approximately.
Or, teams have to agree about fast few turns session.

Yes, these long turn around times are really boring.

It's like correspondence chess back in the old days before the internet... :D

I have seen both types of games. For example in CDG1 we have 6 very dedicated reliable players who usually pass the turn on with in 1 day. So the game is flowing quickly and it is a lot of fun. They game may still last a year, but at least there is always action going on, and there are no long interruptions where you forget what you did last turn...
However, unfortunately it is sufficient to have only one single "unreliable" player in the roster, and then it may cause delays of 1-2 weeks every once in a while, and this spoils the fun for the rest of the players, even if they are reliable. If something like this drags on for a longer period, other players may also loose interest, and this usually means the death of that game. Sometimes it can be averted by finding a suitable substitute.

In this intersite team match, however, I hope that this will not happen, because of two reasons:

in a team of 5+ people there should always be one available, who can play the turn and pass it on to the next team
we will have a referee, who will simply "click end-of-turn" and pass the turn on to the next team, if a team does not respond within the time limit... Of course every team will be striving to avoid this.... and therefore the turns should be flowing quickly.


Lanzelot

*Coughs*
*Stares awkwardly at ceiling*

:D

I just received an email from Furiey, who says taking the referee position for CFC will not be a problem. Although Furiey does not speak German, with our three translators their shouldn't be a problem. So we've got the CFC side covered.

I have taken note of your quaint little civilization, and will take the question of private fora to the admins. :)

Is it 4 teams of 2 civs each, or 8 independent civs? Thinking of whether the 2 CFC teams need independent fora or not. Maybe they do because they're not supposed to have contact until they meet in-game?

It's 4 teams. Two CFC teams and 2 CivForum teams, and each team will play one civ. The CFC teams will need private forums not only to keep separate from each other, but CivForums people drop by here also. Community space would also be good. I'm guessing this main page will be the Community space?

Thanks for your help DaveShack. This is really appreciated. :thumbsup:

Stares awkwardly at ceiling
improuves my dictionary... but what did you mean here?
Let discuss "in parallel" game setup

1) good idea "no civ with AA UU". Let's remove Dutch as well. It is the only agry remained.
2) No Barbarians. It is too random and only one player can see how they move.
3) accelerated production?
4) Bonus tech from Philosophy?

I say we use Acellerated Production as it was made just for this kind of game.

improuves my dictionary... but what did you mean here?
Let discuss "in parallel" game setup

1) good idea "no civ with AA UU". Let's remove Dutch as well. It is the only agry remained.
2) No Barbarians. It is too random and only one player can see how they move.
3) accelerated production?
4) Bonus tech from Philosophy?

I will try to "improve" your vocabulary. I believe Bowsling directed that towards me and my remark about "these long turn around times are really boring". It was just in good fun. It was an attempt at humor. :)

1.) Good idea. Let's dump the Dutch also.
2.) Sedimentary Barbs are fine with me. That way they will only show up in Villages randomly.
3.)We don't really need it, I don't use it SP, but if everyone forces me to use it, there's nothing I can do. :)
4. Yes, I don't see why we have to change that. It makes for an interesting race and will force some teams to choose a civ that starts with The Alphabet.

Yes..

no, my problem is that my attention comes and goes. Sometimes I'm involved, but I'll go quite some time without checking in - partly that has to do with work.

:) Would that make it ADD instead of ATM?

1) good idea "no civ with AA UU". Let's remove Dutch as well. It is the only agry remained.


Good option!


2) No Barbarians. It is too random and only one player can see how they move.


I do not care too much about barbs. On a small map sedentary barbs are not even worthwhile for expansionistic civs. In my last PBEM as Russia I failed to get even ONE tech out of huts :sad:

So I would say either no barbs, or maybe restless barbs.


3) accelerated production?

NOPE!


4) Bonus tech from Philosophy?

YES!

I would rather think about what to do about SGLs. I would not mind about disabling them, but I think that the CivForum members prefer them activated. Maybe SGLs should only be able to rush small wonders? Or Great Wonders up to 300 shields?

Our "new friends" from Germany are also currently discussing the settup for this game. Please see their discussion thread (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69549). They are also holding a vote on certain questions.

Perhaps those of us, who want to take part in the process of setting up the map & game features, should post their input on this thread? kleinerHeldt said our input is welcome. Currently people post there in both languages, German and English, but if more from CFC turn up there, they will probably mainly switch to English...

However, in order to post and vote there, you would have to create a user for Civforum.


Another question that concerns only us: should we start forming teams now? I would suggest one team for the players preferring the "DemoGame-style" and one team for those preferring "SuccessionGame-style". (Hopefully both teams will turn out to be of even size and strength.)
Any candidates for "team captains"? Please indicate in this thread. If we have more than one candidate, we'll just have a vote. If people send me PMs with their preferred style, I will add that information to my list of interested players.

Moved to page 6 now...

So I take it that everyone's silence about Furiey being the CFC Referee is your approval. :dubious:

I would think this a topic worthy of comment.

So I take it that everyone's silence about Furiey being the CFC Referee is your approval. :dubious:

I would think this a topic worthy of comment.

Fine by me.

I do not really know Furiey. But I trust your judgement. If you say he is the right man for the jpb, I agree...

Hmm.

:hmm:

I guess Don't Ask; Don't Tell won't work here.

I'm coming out of the closet:

:eek:




DemoGame.

Hmm.

:hmm:

I guess Don't Ask; Don't Tell won't work here.

I'm coming out of the closet:

:eek:




DemoGame.

Congrats CB. I'm proud of you. But what do you have to say about Furiey being the CFC Referee?

SG style
Furiey OK

But what do you have to say about Furiey being the CFC Referee?
I do not recall interacting with Furiey in a thread or SG but I have seen some posts by him.

He is a bit of an unknown to me, but I have no reason to protest him as Referee.

Is he willing to be Referee in a CivIII game?

Furiey has been heavily involved in previous C3C Demogames here at CFC and is very familiar with a wide variety of playstyles and strategies. Having been a DemogGame President many times and leading at least one C3C DG to Victory, is quite familiar with the common or standard rules in processing the game. This would include any administrative and/or operational problems that may crop up and need to be looked at by a referee.

And if you read back to post 67, you find that I received an email from Furiey accepting the position. Sitting here typing this I can't help but admire your signature, CB. I'm glad you're going to be on the DemoGame team. We will need your expetise.

Just for those of you that don't know me:

I've played many of the Civ 3 demogames here back from when I first registered.
I've also played most of the Civ 3 SGOTM (team tao) from the 2nd to the one with the enormous number of civs that my poor old pc just couldn't handle.
I'm currently playing with team CDZ on the Civ 4 MTDG.

So I have both DG and SG experience, just no German!

Hi there!

I am Erpel, one of the players at civforum (but i speak just for myself now). :)

I dont think the language should be a problem, nearly everybody in the german teams will at least understand english (also justanick, the german referee, of course). If we assure, that the three german-speaking players at civfanatics are well divided on the two teams, i dont see any problems.

The more interesting question is how to organize the game, and where to discuss the rules etc...

@Lanzelot: Is the distinction in your list between SG and DG a hint on future teams? If so, you can add me to the DG faction.

@Lanzelot: Is the distinction in your list between SG and DG a hint on future teams?

Yes, I think it makes sense to have one team of people who like the DG approach better, and another team for those who would like to go with the SG approach. (However, no one so far commented on that suggestion yet.)

In any case, I have penciled you in for the DG team.
(Too bad... I'm still waiting for a game where we will finally be "on the same side"...! ;) )

Any candidates for "team captains"? Please indicate in this thread. If we have more than one candidate, we'll just have a vote. If people send me PMs with their preferred style, I will add that information to my list of interested players.

Hey Lanzelot,

Thanks for helping put this thing in working order. You've been a great help.
I agree that we need to start organizing our teams and participate in determining the rules. I have been active on the CivForum boards, just as you and Calis have (thanks Calis). Do you think I should strt setting up some preliminary polls for basic settings?

As far as a Team Captain for the DG team, I believe we should wait a bit and decide once the team members are all known, the have a vote or discussion about it. Right now Calis and I are most active, but Calis and CB are the better players.

Captain for "Team SG": I. Larkin, how about you?
Lantzelot, I think you can do this job better.
It is communication with referees, other team captains;
work out balanced team oppinion
I think we may adjust SG rules http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112722
about "captain" for more democratic style.

Hey Lanzelot,

Thanks for helping put this thing in working order. You've been a great help.
I agree that we need to start organizing our teams and participate in determining the rules. I have been active on the CivForum boards, just as you and Calis have (thanks Calis). Do you think I should strt setting up some preliminary polls for basic settings?


I would agree with setting up some polls, or whatever speeds up the start, but it would be great to get an own forum for our purpoe (at least a sub-forum :p)

I would like to play in one Team with Lanzelot and TemplarX, but i (must) play DG :(

I would like to play in one Team with Lanzelot and TemplarX, but i (must) play DG :(

Why is that? German? I am German...

I would like to play in one Team with Lanzelot and TemplarX, but i (must) play DG :(

Why is that? German? I am German...

I would think the reason he needs to play DG is because of time constraints, not language. Memento may not be able to take the reins for a full 10 turns (which may mean 2 months). I think he means the CFC DG team. Right on Memento! :thumbsup:

I would agree with setting up some polls, or whatever speeds up the start, but it would be great to get an own forum for our purpoe (at least a sub-forum :p)
I PMd DaveShack a couple of times and he replied the other day, saying he would take our request for private forums (1 per CFC team) up a level (senior Moderator). Then I'm sure he can restructure these subforums to match our needs.

Well, I suppose I will join on the DG team.

I would think the reason he needs to play DG is because of time constraints, not language. Memento may not be able to take the reins for a full 10 turns (which may mean 2 months). I think he means the CFC DG team. Right on Memento! :thumbsup:.

Sure, what else? :D

I've registered on civforum.de, same username as here.

And for those that don't know I'm that rare creature - a female civ player.

And for those that don't know I'm that rare creature - a female civ player.

WHAT???? NOBODY TOLD MEE!!!

Would you marry me??? Ahh wait, I am already married...darn... :D :D :D

Thank you, Furiey. I for one am glad that you are here as our referee.

Here's a link to the English language thread at CivForum (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69387). I hope this helps and may also assist people new to this thread.

I've registered on civforum.de, same username as here.

And for those that don't know I'm that rare creature - a female civ player.
I'm also at civforum.de, once again as CommandoBob.

I am much less unique than Furiey is; male, overweight, underwashed and underpaid.

I vote DG

Moved to page 7.

memento dg ;)

It doesn't really matter to me if I'm on DG or SG, though DG would probably be better.

DG please.

I would like to play in one Team with Lanzelot and TemplarX, but i (must) play DG :(

I'm sure, if we have at least one German speaker in each time, that would be sufficient. And I expect time involvement to be smaller in an SG type game than in a DG game. So if you would like to play in our team, there's no reason why you shouldn't. Just consider: you, templar, I. Larkin and myself, that would be the perfect "GOTM veteran" team. Should be fun.

WHAT???? NOBODY TOLD MEE!!!

Would you marry me??? Ahh wait, I am already married...darn... :D :D :D

Well, perhaps we can persuade Furiey to talk to our wifes, telling them how nice civilization actually is? I started a hotseat game with my wife about a year ago, but since then whenever I suggest continuing that game, she claims to have other urgent things to do..... :( :queen:

(Same problem with chess, btw... :crazyeye: )

SG: 3
DG: 9

:eek:

Memento, Chamnix: you can't leave your fellow GOTM buddies standing in the rain...! Gebt Euch einen Ruck... :)

Well, perhaps we can persuade Furiey to talk to our wifes, telling them how nice civilization actually is? I started a hotseat game with my wife about a year ago, but since then whenever I suggest continuing that game, she claims to have other urgent things to do..... :( :queen:

(Same problem with chess, btw... :crazyeye: )
Just remind them that at least they know where you are and what you're up to when you're playing!
It's not even an expensive addiction either, just think what you would spend going down the pub all the time. Don't mention the cost of the computer though - after all, none of us would upgrade our computer just to play civ, there's always a very serious reason for upgrading isn't there? :mischief:

Still going on here. That's fine. I can't have a look to often here, but meanwhile there is no need anymore for it.
The German will start creating teams if the settings are clear.
Let me see which questions still have to be answered:

1) pangaea or continent (I think the over options are out of discussion)
1b) If continent with or without island for some unique ressources?
2) How "big" would our world be. I think something between 60*60 to 80*80 tiles would be realistic.
3) Which Civs can be choosen? The discussion goes on, several ideas are given (No AA UU, no agriculture). Clear is we want a limitation, how fare we gonna see soon. Here is the link to this discussion (meanwhile a lot in english): http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69802
4) Barbs?
I like them, they give the game more tension in the beginning. Of course there is the problem that only the last player can see there moves, but for the last team it's harder to research a new tech first, or to biuld a World Wunder. So this little bonus is okay for me.
I don't like playing without huts. They can generate first diplomatic problems.
5) accelerated production?
Please not. I don't think there is one german player who likes this option. But if you really want it, try to convince :D
6) where to post diplomatic issues?
We normally use "ambassador-forums", one for every two-team-constellation, only visible for the specific teams. In this game we would need 6 Forums or we use E-Mail. So that every team get an ambassador mailadress. For the referees using the forum would be more comfortable.
7) How would the save move from team to team and referee?
We still discuss the two last points in this thread: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69895
8) Timelimitation?
We use a limit of 24 h for every turn and team. But there is also the possibility of saving some time for special moments (if there is special need of discussion). In the last game I think the maximum of saving time was three days 72 hours. And if you hold the save too long, the referees will end the turn without moving any unit, just clicking next turn.
9) The "rulebook"? Are there still some questions/wishes/comments?
.
.
.
Did I forget anything?

What technnology will allow teams to trade Territory Maps and World Maps?


Printing Press
Map Making

I say map making. If it helps, I'll play on the SG team, though it might slow down play as I have very little free time.

What technnology will allow teams to trade Territory Maps and World Maps?


Printing Press
Map Making


In Vanilla/PTW: Map Making enables "map trading" as well as "contact trading"
In C3C: Printing Presss enables "contact trading", Navigation enables "map trading"

Edit: sorry, I'm stupid. I just learned on the German forum that CommandoBob is asking whether we should enable map trading already for the ancient age...

Yes, I think that's a good idea!

SG: 3
DG: 9

:eek:

Memento, Chamnix: you can't leave your fellow GOTM buddies standing in the rain...! Gebt Euch einen Ruck... :)

Can I leave my fellow MTDG buddies standing in the rain? :)

I don't care that much - if one team really needs more people, then I would be willing to play on either.

:(
I was thinking briefly how happy I was splitting up Chamnix and Lanzelot on separate teams. These two guys can take on the world blind-folded and still win. I guess I won't be learning anything from Chamnix this game. :think:

Can I leave my fellow MTDG buddies standing in the rain? :)


They are not standing in the rain... ;)

Well, I think we need at least 5 players, otherwise the stress on each player is too high. Let's wait until Moff and Overseer have cast their vote. And perhaps Memento will still change his mind, when he sees the current situation.
If we are still lacking players then, we will try to convince Sparthage or you to switch to our colors... :D

(BTW: I didn't know you were active in the MTDG as well. So I guess I need to start reading the MTDG forums now...)

In order to get an overview I started a list of players willing to play for the Civfanatics teams (in order of their appearance in this thread):


Cyc (DG)
Lanzelot (SG)
TheOverseer714
Eclipse4449 (DG)
CommandoBob (DG)
Calis (DG)
Moff Jerjerrod
Bowsling (DG)
I. Larkin (SG)
templar_x (SG)
Chamnix (DG)
Memento (DG)
Sparthage (DG)
AutomatedTeller (DG)


I think that a SC-team does not really fit into the idee of an DG. There should be 2 DG teams at CFC. If necessary they could be filled up with some additional members from civforum. This would also lead to teams of comparable sizes. At the moment it seems that there will be more participants from civforum than from CFC.

I vote for Democracy Game option.

Welcomw Moff Jerjerrod!

How many total players are your 2 teams now sporting, justanick? Can you supply a list of names?

The SC style can work, although that team will probably have to nominate someone to deal with inter team diplomacy or it would get very confusing for the other teams being contacted by different people all the time. Not everyone wants to go through all the voting that comes with a DG style game and may just prefer to discuss and come to a consensus. Saying that, 3 players will leave the team very shorthanded so we really need more on that team.

SG seems to need more help, so I will do SG.

Welcome back, TO.

The SC style can work, although that team will probably have to nominate someone to deal with inter team diplomacy or it would get very confusing for the other teams being contacted by different people all the time. Not everyone wants to go through all the voting that comes with a DG style game and may just prefer to discuss and come to a consensus. Saying that, 3 players will leave the team very shorthanded so we really need more on that team.
I agree with Furiey that the SC/SG style can work, but that a consistant contact person will have to be chosen to relay all communications from other teams to his teammates. Otherwise, someone else on the team may ignore a treaty or trade deal, etc.

It appears now that, with MoffJ and TO checking in, the toals are DG - 10 and SG - 4. Realistically, those numbers may translate to 7 - 3. But maybe not. Shall we call this a starting point? Or would you like some more time to recruit for the SC/SG?

Could we get an announcement about this on the CivFanatics main site, where perhaps more people will see it?

:) I'll work on that CB. I believe DaveShack can push that onto the front page for us.

Just consider: you, templar, I. Larkin and myself, that would be the perfect "GOTM veteran" team. Should be fun.

Memento, Chamnix: you can't leave your fellow GOTM buddies standing in the rain...! Gebt Euch einen Ruck...

Ok, du hast mich.
Aber nicht meckern wenn ich mal keine Zeit habe. ;)

Ok, du hast mich.
Aber nicht meckern wenn ich mal keine Zeit habe. ;)

:goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:

Wellcome Overseer!! You are a desperately needed strengthening of the SG team! :thumbsup:

Ok, and after Memento change his mind, the score is now 5 - 9:

(List moved to page 8 now...)

I think, with these 5 players the team SG is "operable". I know each of the fellow contestants personally, I. Larkin and myself have fought "back-to-back" in SGOTM14, TheOverseer and myself are veterans from the SGFN-08 succession game. I'm sure that this team can go through fire.
If someone else still wants to switch to SG, it would of cause be a welcome improvement, but I don't think it's necessary. We've had size-5 teams in the SGOTM, and it worked perfectly.

However, the idea of having a designated person for the communication with the other teams sounds good. I guess that will just be the job of the team captain.

Justanick: just think of our team as a kind of "Solonic" democracy...

So now let's create the map and get started... :D

I don't say SC-Team won't work. It just does not fit the idea of the DG. As far as i know the wide mayority of the german players are still thinking there will be a normal DG(meaning Multi-Team-DG as you are calling it here).

How many total players are your 2 teams now sporting, justanick? Can you supply a list of names?

There are no teams. There are approximately 20 players willing to join or found teams as soon as it is time to found teams.

First there is the need to determine settings, rules und referees. As soon as this process is finished on both "sides" the teams can be founded. As time goes by referees will cancels teams till there are 2 for each forum left.

This is the classic procedure when starting a DG. But as I see you have started some kind of teamfoundation altough ruleset, the way of organisation und mapsettings are not determined yet. :eek:
This should be done first. Afterwards all players can publish suggestions of future teams*. Typically there will by more suggestions then teams that finally take part in the game. So depending on how many players provisional joined teams referees will cancels suggested teams and the players of canceled team can joins remaining teams till there are only 2 teams left on each side.

* Here is an example from DG6: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=59957

Yeah, I think it's better to form teams after the rules, useable civs and the mapsettings are set.

Ok, we are working on our end of the deal. Let's get this show on the road. The poll results can pretty much be used for CFC opinion (if enough people vote....). The polls will end next Wednesday, I believe. If CivForums can bring their rules, useable civs and the mapsettings to a head by then, we can negotiate then. Who will make the map?

Come people. We need everyone to vote. No need to wait till the last second. It only takes a few clicks. Let us know how you feel about these topics now, so they can be discussed.

Yeah, I think it's better to form teams after the rules, useable civs and the mapsettings are set.
I think nothing wrong to do things in parallel. But we may "finalize" rules first and "finalize" teams after that.
About "rulset" still can not understand what is the difference between DG is SG . Have no experience of DG and without that it is hard to imagine "procedure". For me making decision by voting looks ridicules. May be just "for me".

Who will make the map?

Furiey and me.
The map will be a random map changed to some special amount towards fairness. The "exact" amount needs to be discussed first. http://www.civforum.de/images/smilies/brauen.gif

I think nothing wrong to do things in parallel.

I do.
Team suggestions depend on ruleset and map settings. It also improves the clearness. If you are bored you may think about a Team suggestion made by you. This typically needs some kind of creativity.

<- psyche :)

I have to get rid of that horrible username. :blush:

Quick: Ask me like four questions! :D

I think that a SC-team does not really fit into the idee of an DG. There should be 2 DG teams at CFC. If necessary they could be filled up with some additional members from civforum. This would also lead to teams of comparable sizes. At the moment it seems that there will be more participants from civforum than from CFC.

I could probably keep my self afloat languagewise. And my primary motive to join a team at civforum.de was to play with you anyways. So i could probably join a team here, even though i doubt my usefulness given my rather inconsistent activity. :mischief:

I think nothing wrong to do things in parallel. But we may "finalize" rules first and "finalize" teams after that.
About "rulset" still can not understand what is the difference between DG is SG . Have no experience of DG and without that it is hard to imagine "procedure". For me making decision by voting looks ridicules. May be just "for me".

I agree with doing things in parallel and "finalizing" afterwards.

The ruleset are basic rules that will apply to all teams, regardless of their playing style. Playing style is the only difference between an SG and a DG. In the SG, a team member takes control of the save and is responsible for all moves and actions during the 10 turns that he has contol. Then he reports what he has done to the rest of the team. He may or may not take the advise of his team mates. Everytime the save comes to his team, the then active player takes the save, plays it, and passes it on to the next team. He does this for 10 turns (or whatever amount of turns the SG team decides is appropriate), and then the active control is passed on to the next player for ten turns. This happens until all the players on the SG team have had active control of the save. I'm sure you understand how this works.

In a DG, the save still only gets played by one player (chosen by the DG team), but the strategy and the individual moves can be discussed by the entire team. Discussions about many aspects of the game can happen in real time with the game. In fact, the turn can even be played in a chatroom, where other team mates can join in and make suggestions, give advice, etc. But it's call a Democracy Game because the team members are deemed citizens of the nation and can all help determine the course of the nation's history. The President (also called the Designated Player (DP) ) takes all the suggestions/advice/demands/whatever from the discussions and plays the turn, then passes it onto the next team. This "President" can be voted out of office at anytime. Normally, elections are held monthly for the position, and if the team so chooses, other positions can be electable (Military Advisor, Domestic Advisor, etc). But this may not be a requirement. Your worry about polling everything is a bit off-base. Someone may decide to poll an important decision quickly to get a concrete concensus, or even a loose projection, but not EVERY decision is polled. Just when someone deems it necessary.

Has this helped?

I do.
Team suggestions depend on ruleset and map settings. It also improves the clearness. If you are bored you may think about a Team suggestion made by you. This typically needs some kind of creativity.

justanick, I think that CivForum's way of processing the start of a DG may be a little too stringent for us country-folk here at CFC. We don't have a problem with the way you want to get your game together, but we have found that merging operations and procedures seamlessly brings us to the results we need. It may not look as orthadox as some, but we get there none the less.

Do you think you'll be ready for negotiations next Wednesday?

Welcome metatron, glad to see you. Hope everything works well with your new name.

Are you really thinking about playing for CFC instead of CivForums? Will we have the option of taking you out back and shooting you as a Spy? ;) Just kidding....

Are you really thinking about playing for CFC instead of CivForums?

There is another much smaller forum of german civplayers and originally we planed to have that site represented with its own team. I would have been part of that team. However we didn't find enough players (not enough active players actually) so we dropped the idea. (All that was months ago.)
So i'm not that attached to the civforum.de when it comes to choosing a team. :)

But i still warn you. I am probably not a useful addition to any team apart from adding a name to the memberlist and having an additional guy to chat with.

In fact, the turn can even be played in a chatroom, where other team mates can join in and make suggestions, give advice, etc.

Chatrooms?
Procedure in last DGs at civforum was that there ist one thread for each turn where turnspecific discussion and planning happens. Multible threads are possible, too.

This "President" can be voted out of office at anytime. Normally, elections are held monthly for the position, and if the team so chooses, other positions can be electable (Military Advisor, Domestic Advisor, etc).

Complex Constitutions are also possible. Players who have done their work as designated Player well may get constitutional right, that their votes are weighted by a factor >1.

justanick, I think that CivForum's way of processing the start of a DG may be a little too stringent for us country-folk here at CFC. We don't have a problem with the way you want to get your game together, but we have found that merging operations and procedures seamlessly brings us to the results we need. It may not look as orthadox as some, but we get there none the less.

Maybe. Those cultural and linguistic hurdles hamper the process of getting the game started in a responsible way. Before starting the game it is nessary to name all relevant differences. When I thought about being referee i did not imagine what happens now. :eek:

Do you think you'll be ready for negotiations next Wednesday?

What concrete kind of negotiations are you thinking about? :confused:

I do.
Team suggestions depend on ruleset and map settings. It also improves the clearness. If you are bored you may think about a Team suggestion made by you. This typically needs some kind of creativity.

justanick, I am not boring, but first things first: If there is no team then nobody will play and there is no reason to care aobout rulset and mapsettings.

you may think about a Team suggestion made by you.
What do you mean here?
Team is the people you want to play with and those who want to play with you...

justanick, I am not boring, but first things first: If there is no team then nobody will play and there is no reason to care aobout rulset and mapsettings.

I guess we have another linguistic problem here. :crazyeye:

justanick, I am not boring, but first things first: If there is no team then nobody will play and there is no reason to care aobout rulset and mapsettings.

It is tradition in german DGs that ruleset and mapsettings are determined first. Afterwards for expample 6 players found teams. Then the 50 players left choose one of those teams. Referees rule that only 3 teams have enough manpower to play. The players from canceled team join the 3 teams left and those 3 teams compete against each other.
A team suggestion may look like this: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=59957

Do you now understand what I mean? Translating from german to english and then to russish(?) ist some kind of problem. :crazyeye:

Russian

But I am not sure whether I. Larkin is Russian

And, as I already posted in the civforum, I hope you guys accept that we want to build our team as we like to. Actually they are already forming :)

What concrete kind of negotiations are you thinking about? :confused:

Well, we need to get started eventually... can't keep talking forever... ;)

I suggest that 4 people get together (via email, chatroom or whatever) to finalize the remaining open points below. These 4 people should be: the two referees, one representative from Civforum and one representative from CFC. So for example: justanick, Furiey, kleinerHeldt and Cyc.
We have had our discussions and polls overhere (the polls end on Wednesday, I guess that's why Cyc suggested that date?!), you have had your discussions & polls over at Civforum, so I guess the two representatives should have a pretty good picture of what the majority of players want.
Of course it's impossible to please everybody, there will always be someone who doesn't like this or that decision. But I have full trust in Cyc that he will represent the majority over here well. And I will accept the decisions of the committee, even if they are not to my liking (I will play even if they decide to ban CivAssist...! ;) ), and I think 99.9% of the people would do the same. (And if really someone refuses to play because of a decision he doesn't like, then we can't help him! Better he leaves us at the beginning than sometime in the middle of the game...)
I think, this is the most practical way to handle this. The alternative would be to keep talking and discussing a couple more weeks until even the last person is satisfied with every detail.

The points to be taken care of:

Merge the two rule sets into one. Should not be difficult. As far as I can see, the only major conflict is whether or not to allow CAII.
Decide on the map parameters (size, type, layout etc)
Decide on the list of playable Civs.
"Lembot + Embassy threads" or "Email accounts"


After the "Committee of Four" have decided on these four points, they publish the result of their little conference, and then two things can be done in parallel:

The two referees can design the map (according to the chosen map parameters)
The teams can discuss which civ they want to play (this as well depends on the chosen map parameters). (And, if Civforum doesn't have teams yet, they can first form the teams. I think the teams here at CFC are pretty much "stable" now. We may see the one or the other switch and get a few additional late-comers, but other than that I don't see, why the features of the map or the rule set would influence our team rosters?! Most of the people here are long-time friends, and I would play with the same team, no matter whether its large archipelago or small pangaea.)


Lanzelot

I guess we have another linguistic problem here. :crazyeye:



It is tradition in german DGs that ruleset and mapsettings are determined first. Afterwards for expample 6 players found teams. Then the 50 players left choose one of those teams. Referees rule that only 3 teams have enough manpower to play. The players from canceled team join the 3 teams left and those 3 teams compete against each other.
A team suggestion may look like this: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=59957

Do you now understand what I mean? Translating from german to english and then to russish(?) ist some kind of problem. :crazyeye:
I think I understand what you mean, but I don't understand how somebody may decide about "manpower" of unknown people. Also, I do not understand how 3 teams will play on the map that was created for 4 or 6.

I think there may not be that much difference between the two "types" (SG/DG) after all.

In a DG, the save still only gets played by one player (chosen by the DG team), but the strategy and the individual moves can be discussed by the entire team.

This is done in a succession game as well. Perhaps not in real-time (chatroom), but it certainly takes place in the team thread. (There may even be little polls, if the team members can't come to a unison consent.) The only major difference may be, that the "designated player" changes automatically every 10 turns, while in a DG it changes only if the people vote for it.

Well, we need to get started eventually... can't keep talking forever... ;)

Not forever, but 2 weeks may be a proper approximation. Then there will be another 2 weeks for teamfoundation-phase. Game won't start this month.
Since we are waiting since may of this year it won't make a big difference, but careless pushing things a bit too fast may. I want all mayor issues be cleared before the game finally starts, this prevents later problems. :)
BTW: One issue is the startingposition of seafaring civs. How should we handle them?

I suggest that 4 people get together (via email, chatroom or whatever) to finalize the remaining open points below. These 4 people should be: the two referees, one representative from Civforum and one representative from CFC.

I don't like this idea. At first I don't like those outside mediums, i prefer regular forum. And at second i don't like the idea of "representatives" dictating the rules for the mayority.

From my point of view there needs to by a discussion about the different game-philosophies. Calis began it at civforum.
Other members from CFC who can speak German may try to convey those ideas in the german language only thread: http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?t=69853

Depending on this discussion a ruleset can be determined.

I don't see, why the features of the map or the rule set would influence our team rosters?! Most of the people here are long-time friends, and I would play with the same team, no matter whether its large archipelago or small pangaea.)

Here is another difference. The rpg-background of german team is an importing issue for selecting a team.

I think I understand what you mean, but I don't understand how somebody may decide about "manpower" of unknown people.

This is of cause a problem.

Also, I do not understand how 3 teams will play on the map that was created for 4 or 6.

The map is created for 3 teams. :secret:
Here the map will be created for 4 teams.

The only major difference may be, that the "designated player" changes automatically every 10 turns, while in a DG it changes only if the people vote for it.

In german DGs there was mostly a second designated player in a team. If first designated player is not online when save arrives and no further questions are left the second designated player plays the turn.

I think we are making more of this than it needs to be....


justanick is probably just stating things in a manner that is so obvious, we don't even spend time considering it. But in justanick's way, it must be stated. That's fine. Like that obvious rule about the Great Library collecting techs up to Eduction. Hey that's fine too. It's just that we don't need to state obvious facts. Everyone here knows this stuff. Just like we know how to form teams and get a game started. So it's OK. I think we've been kicking a dead horse. We agree on things, but feel the need to debate the fact that we agree on things which may vary slightly in semantics, but give the same results.

So let's slow down and approach this calmly. Next Wednesday, I'll open up a discussion thread here at CFC in which the four people Lanzelot mentioned will partake in discussing, negotiating, and modifying the rules so that a final draft (acceptable to both sites) can be drawn. Only those four people will post in that thread. This will be done to apease justanick who does not like the "live" conversation aspect of negotiation. This thread will be active for two weeks, just as justanick wishes, and then a final draft will be drawn up. Any other player who wishes to suggest or recommend a rule change must contact one of the "Gang of Four" outside of that thread (ie... in another thread, through PM or email, etc.). Ok, so there is a compartmental, calm approach for finalizing the rules. One where the participants will not be hindered while discussing the rules in the thread, by others who may feel differently. These "others" will have to make contact outside of that thread. And the Gang of Four will be authorized to accept, modify, and/or deny any of the open rules on the table.

Sound good? That gives us one week to gather our thoughts, examine the rules of both sites and make suggestions for a final ruleset, to include side issues, such as, but not limited to game settings, map settings, and administrative issues.

In a DG, the save still only gets played by one player (chosen by the DG team), but the strategy and the individual moves can be discussed by the entire team. Discussions about many aspects of the game can happen in real time with the game. In fact, the turn can even be played in a chatroom, where other team mates can join in and make suggestions, give advice, etc. But it's call a Democracy Game because the team members are deemed citizens of the nation and can all help determine the course of the nation's history. The President (also called the Designated Player (DP) ) takes all the suggestions/advice/demands/whatever from the discussions and plays the turn, then passes it onto the next team. This "President" can be voted out of office at anytime. Normally, elections are held monthly for the position, and if the team so chooses, other positions can be electable (Military Advisor, Domestic Advisor, etc). But this may not be a requirement. Your worry about polling everything is a bit off-base. Someone may decide to poll an important decision quickly to get a concrete concensus, or even a loose projection, but not EVERY decision is polled. Just when someone deems it necessary.

I've never played a DG but it sounds interesting. I wouldn't have time to play turns but I would certainly be willing to offer suggestions if a team wants me.

Welcome to the game, EvilConqueror.

Welcome from me as well! Just pick your choice, both teams can use new players!

I'll take this occasion to update our list:

Cyc (DG)
Lanzelot (SG)
TheOverseer714 (SG)
Eclipse4449 (DG)
CommandoBob (DG)
Calis (DG)
Moff Jerjerrod (DG)
Bowsling (DG)
I. Larkin (SG)
templar_x (SG)
Chamnix (DG)
Memento (SG)
Sparthage (DG)
AutomatedTeller (DG)
EvilConqueror (DG)
ignas (SG)
CharlemagneXLII (DG)

Hello, I'd like to play for CFC team. SG preferred. Just need some time to read all those pages You've written here.

Just pick your choice, both teams can use new players!

DG please.

Thank you both for the welcome. :)

"Lembot + Embassy threads" or "Email accounts"

What is "Lembot?

I support Lanzelots suggestion. :thumbsup:

Hello, I'd like to play for CFC team. SG preferred.
Welcome on board, ignas! Hey, this is going to be like in SGOTM14! :goodjob:

I support Lanzelots suggestion. :thumbsup:

Which one...? :crazyeye: I made so many recently, I lost track...

What is "Lembot?

Lembot is a "user" of civforum. All its postings (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?p=3075742#post3075742) are created by an automatic clockworksystem. Each team gets a password to upload their saves to clockworksystem, then Lembot computes their time left on timetable and creates a suitable posting. The postword for clockworksystem an password for opening the save in C3C 1.22 will be the same. Keep thing easy.

PS: At the moment clockworksystem is offline. I guess it will be avaible timely.

In SP-games seafaring civs start at coast. If Startingposition should be assigned by random towards teams this can become a problem. The easiest solution would be that referees choose all 4 startingsposition to be at coast. This can be interpreted as a disadvantage for all non-seafaring civs. How do you think about this?

Lembot is a "user" of civforum. All its postings (http://www.civforum.de/showthread.php?p=3075742#post3075742) are created by an automatic clockworksystem. Each team gets a password to upload their saves to clockworksystem, then Lembot computes their time left on timetable and creates a suitable posting. The postword for clockworksystem an password for opening the save in C3C 1.22 will be the same. Keep thing easy.

PS: At the moment clockworksystem is offline. I guess it will be avaible timely.
How can you expect people to judge the worthiness of the LemBot system (or vote on it for the game) if it is not up and operational for everyone to see it work. I would definitely like to know it a text post will activate the clock. That way emailing the save and posting a gps to LemBot can work in harmony. Secure diplomacy can accompany the save, etc.

Can you bring this (LemBot) up now?

Can you bring this (LemBot) up now?

No, it belongs to Lemming. He has agreed to make it avaible, but i am still waiting for an answer in this process.

I would definitely like to know it a text post will activate the clock.

As i said before it is necessary to upload the save. Text post is absolutely unnecessary, as this will be created by Lembot.

That way emailing the save and posting a gps to LemBot can work in harmony. Secure diplomacy can accompany the save, etc.

I still don't understand what you mean by that. The way i see it, clockworksystem is not less insecure than any alternative. But much more comfortable.

I'll join with CFC. I would prefer a demogame, but I suggest letting teams form and deciding how to organize themselves, if it is multi-team. One team can play with a democracy, the other with a succession (are people wanting an SC wanting multiple teams?). In our BtS MTDG, one team is in fact playing as a monarchy/

@Charlemagne: It looks like there will be 4 teams, 2 at Civforum and 2 here. Of the 2 here it looks like one team will be organised in a traditional demogame manner, the other as more of a succession game. This will give people a choice of the type of team they wish to play in.

Welcome CharlemagneXLII! I've signed you up for the demogame team.

Yes, more than 4 teams would definitely drag this game out too long. Already with 4 teams it may run for way over a year.

Update: This is an update on the re-organization of these forums for the ISDG, to include private forums for each team. This will also keep alive the MTDG II forums so that game can continue. A PM from DaveShack ~

"Hi Cyc, sorry as you guessed I've been buried lately with work.

Messages received, notice of the request was posted in the staff forum.
The admins have also been extra busy with RL lately, but it should be soon.

Regards, Dave"

So it's in the works! Just around the corner.

Hi!
Is the subscription over? Could there be more than 4 teams?

Sorry, 4 teams is it at this point. Are you from another site with a team of players? Or is it just you?

I'm sure the Brotherhood could use an additional player. You can ask to sign up in their thread.

I read the announcement (http://www.civfanatics.ru/content/123-Intersite-demo-game-Civ3) on civfanatics.ru, there are several enthusiasts of CIII.

Yes I agree that 4 teams is enough, I'll ask our players if they like to join one of CFC teams.

Where is the Map?