How about:
No rehoming caravans/freight
Keep a spotless reputation
If we want to be really crazy, no buying cities?
No rehoming caravans/freight
Keep a spotless reputation
If we want to be really crazy, no buying cities?
Next Demogame Discussions
- Thread starter Zwelgje
- Start date
It would be a very bloody-game ; I'm not sure it is the vocation of a Democracy. :love2:
Yes, this could be a great challenge.
How can we use the scores in F11 to give some objectives ?
Or somethnig like a scenario with special cities to take or civs to eliminate ?
Also, the polls are fun and a good way to get some input from people who feel they don't need to post because their opinion has already been voiced, but I felt some of the polls towards the end of this game were getting a bit complex. Maybe the polls should be a little simpler, and the specifics decided in the discussion. For example... instead of polling 3 options for a tax change, you poll yes or no, then discuss how it could be changed in the thread!
I agree with the smaller map, but maybe leave restarts switched on! Then you've got that element of not knowing if the dead Vikings had reincarnated into Germans!
I agree with the smaller map, but maybe leave restarts switched on! Then you've got that element of not knowing if the dead Vikings had reincarnated into Germans!
GaryNemo
Settler from None
I've learned a lot from this Demo Game, and would like to participate in the next one. A Smaller Map makes sense, but I've learned that is always Pangea. Maybe people would prefer one big Continent - I'd be happy either way. For Islands, it might need to be Medium Map.
The discussions at the beginning were intense and detailed, because we only had 2 or 3 units and everything mattered.
If I had time, I'd still make polls like I used to. Perhaps more of them with fewer choices, but I saw that as Democracy in action.
There is another side to this as well
- an international community. Look at the improvement in Elsaak's English ! I know others of you are not native English speakers, yet you seem to be so. Let's face it, these are tough times for America and others' views of the USA, and every effort at international cooperation and fun is important.
The discussions at the beginning were intense and detailed, because we only had 2 or 3 units and everything mattered.
If I had time, I'd still make polls like I used to. Perhaps more of them with fewer choices, but I saw that as Democracy in action.
There is another side to this as well
- an international community. Look at the improvement in Elsaak's English ! I know others of you are not native English speakers, yet you seem to be so. Let's face it, these are tough times for America and others' views of the USA, and every effort at international cooperation and fun is important.
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
Small Map/fewer cities = good. I find it tough to keep on top of what is going on in anything more than 30-40 cities when I am the one playing every turn. To try to see what's going on after someone else has played 5-10 turns and play catch-up with what happened is extremely difficult. It's like a neverending succession game where you don't ever get your own turn to get a feel for the game. Maybe part of it is because I'm joining the game so late, but it's hard to have an opinion on what to do next if it takes a week just to figure out what's happened. I think a smaller map will make it easier to stay on top of the situation.
I think a Spotless Rep would be a useful restriction. (It's not like it's that hard to do, even if you want war). Outlawing City Bribes will definitely make tactical decision making more important. I think both are good ideas.
The Party idea is interesting. It would simulate some of the issues we deal with today where changes in administration result in major direction changes, often undoing the efforts of the prior administration, but this might be too tough to manage on the forums here, especially with limited interest. You could also easily get a situation where one party dominates, thus shutting everyone else out of the process (and that would be bad!)
I think a Spotless Rep would be a useful restriction. (It's not like it's that hard to do, even if you want war). Outlawing City Bribes will definitely make tactical decision making more important. I think both are good ideas.
The Party idea is interesting. It would simulate some of the issues we deal with today where changes in administration result in major direction changes, often undoing the efforts of the prior administration, but this might be too tough to manage on the forums here, especially with limited interest. You could also easily get a situation where one party dominates, thus shutting everyone else out of the process (and that would be bad!)
Leowind
Emperor
I don't recommend SMALL map, just SMALLER. The size can be set to custom, something perhaps just a bit smaller than MEDIUM. I've played my last couple games on a custom size map and made them square, which I've found more satisfying than the rectangle you typically get. Another thought would be to have somebody not directly involved in the game create a custom map for us, if we can get somebody to agree to do that much work.
Keep rep spotless=agree!
No city bribing=I could support this, but willing to go either way.
political parties=This was discussed and strongly squashed in the first demo game, and I never quite understood why it was not allowed. I think there is the possibility of political maneuvering going overboard and people feeling personally attacked or rejected. As GN pointed out, this is a great forum for building community and we don't want to jepordize that or create hard feelings between fellow CFCers. With that warning in mind, I think having different political parties, or something to that effect, could add a whole new element to the game that could be quite fun, and give folks who don't quite have a grasp on the game itself for whatever reason a way to get involved and participate. I think it's an idea worth continued discussion, anyway.
Keep rep spotless=agree!
No city bribing=I could support this, but willing to go either way.
political parties=This was discussed and strongly squashed in the first demo game, and I never quite understood why it was not allowed. I think there is the possibility of political maneuvering going overboard and people feeling personally attacked or rejected. As GN pointed out, this is a great forum for building community and we don't want to jepordize that or create hard feelings between fellow CFCers. With that warning in mind, I think having different political parties, or something to that effect, could add a whole new element to the game that could be quite fun, and give folks who don't quite have a grasp on the game itself for whatever reason a way to get involved and participate. I think it's an idea worth continued discussion, anyway.
Leowind
Emperor
Jayne and Elsaak snuck in while I was typing I've never played OCC, so that might be really interesting, and certainly would keep the game easier to grasp. I like the idea of limiting to a certain number of cities. we'd need to decide what to do with captured cities then.
I've never played OCC, so that might be really interesting, and certainly would keep the game easier to grasp. I like the idea of limiting to a certain number of cities. we'd need to decide what to do with captured cities then.
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
Problem with an OCC is that there's not a lot of action. It's not that there aren't a lot of important decisions to be made, but they are often regarding minutiae like rearranging workers or trying to gift to keycivs to get a tech in a certain number of turns without wasting beakers, planning out which will be hidden techs so that you can determine what order to research, what order your none-settler will go through roading and irrigating, etc. I love OCC games, but I could see this type of decision-making really turning off a lot of people.
A "Limited number of Cities" game would have to resolve the issue of what to do with captured cities (or forcing us to Raze them, which gets difficult), or require a space ship approach like OCC.
A "Limited number of Cities" game would have to resolve the issue of what to do with captured cities (or forcing us to Raze them, which gets difficult), or require a space ship approach like OCC.
TimTheEnchanter
I...am...an Enchanter!
Yes, you have to raze the city in OCC. You aren't supposed to have a 2nd city for even one turn. Typically you just play nice most of the game and don't fight many wars.
Woo, this thread became popular while I was asleep
I like the idea of putting some restrictions on ourselves, maybe not too much but at least no city bribing and no caravan rehoming sounds good.
I know the civ3 game turned very much "demo", with a lot of roleplaying and stuff. That's not exactly what I'm proposing. My idea is to add a competitive element to the demo part of the game too. The political parties would be totally unrelated to any real parties and we should try to get members somewhat equally distributed between them. It's very likely one party might become dominant, but it's the same in real life and for the good of the game we should try to keep them fairly equal. Having only 3 parties also gives us a good chance that the two smaller mostly could join together to overrule the large. Also we could write the constitution in a way that doesn't give the majority party supreme power, maybe government positions could be divided proportionally to the number of votes. The party with the most votes just get the most seats and get to choose their seats first, making them much more likely to get the president position.
I think something like this could give us both more of the demo part and more of the game part as both would become more challenging.
I like the idea of putting some restrictions on ourselves, maybe not too much but at least no city bribing and no caravan rehoming sounds good.
I know the civ3 game turned very much "demo", with a lot of roleplaying and stuff. That's not exactly what I'm proposing. My idea is to add a competitive element to the demo part of the game too. The political parties would be totally unrelated to any real parties and we should try to get members somewhat equally distributed between them. It's very likely one party might become dominant, but it's the same in real life and for the good of the game we should try to keep them fairly equal. Having only 3 parties also gives us a good chance that the two smaller mostly could join together to overrule the large. Also we could write the constitution in a way that doesn't give the majority party supreme power, maybe government positions could be divided proportionally to the number of votes. The party with the most votes just get the most seats and get to choose their seats first, making them much more likely to get the president position.
I think something like this could give us both more of the demo part and more of the game part as both would become more challenging.
Octavian X
is not a pipe.
I will admit - I tend to like the 'demo' part of the game.
Talar - I don't know about political parties. There are two rather basic prerequisites: 1) A good number of players, and 2), a number of opposing views. While the first may be attainable, the second would be difficult, becuase there always seems to be a single, best, startegy...
Also, the talk of an OOC sounds interesting, but I might aim for a 5CC, so perhaps we could elect a governor for each city or something... A spotless rep and no caravan rehoming sounds better. How 'bout a game where the only cities we can capture/bribe are those that were captured by the AI?
Talar - I don't know about political parties. There are two rather basic prerequisites: 1) A good number of players, and 2), a number of opposing views. While the first may be attainable, the second would be difficult, becuase there always seems to be a single, best, startegy...
Also, the talk of an OOC sounds interesting, but I might aim for a 5CC, so perhaps we could elect a governor for each city or something... A spotless rep and no caravan rehoming sounds better. How 'bout a game where the only cities we can capture/bribe are those that were captured by the AI?
Yes, but not THAT much, only enough to make 3 parties and I think we could manage that with the current number of players.
Exactly, that's why I'm proposing to give the parties predefined goals like for example military party, science party and isolationist party (I'm sure we could come up with better goals later
) The parties first priority would be to use their policy as our main strategy, even if it may sometimes conflict with the objective choice of best strategy.I'm not saying this party thing is the best way to do the next demogame, it depends on what exactly we like the demogame to be and I guess different people have different opinions about that. But I'd like you to consider this a serious option. Whatever we chose for the next game I'll try to be more active than I have been in this one (except maybe for OCC which I never really liked much).
It won't be an OCC and won't have parties. Sorry, I just don't see how it can work and still maintain what the Demogame is meant for. I've talked with several people in the last couple months and no one has been able to come up with a system that can work and not change the 'core' of the demogame.
Parties are, by nature designed to separate and segregate people. Something we don't want to do on CFC. Also, it can very easily lead to flaming, trolling, and fighting. The advisors are as close to a party system as we will get. If the demo part of the game was concentrated on more, people would be having discussions about wanting to build a cannon (military), instead of a caravan (trade), instead of a library (science).
As Octavian X pointed out, we don't really have enough people to try any sort of party system anyways. And I'm sure people would like to be on the 'winning' party so those that are having less influence will most likely just stop playing. So, even if it started as a multi-party system, I think it would end as a single party system. I don't want to have to spend all my time in here watching people like I did for the Civ 3 Demo game.
Maybe we can have soemthing like a 20 City Challenge.
Then, we can have two main options for AI cities:
1.) We can attack AI cities, but not occupy them. If we can't raize them, then we have to leave it until it can be raized. This would give the added difficulty of leaving troops behind to watch cities, as well as give us longer supply lines, and, on top of that, any Wonders the AI builds will be unusable to us.
2.) We can occupy AI cities, but not build any new ones once we reach our 20 city limit.
On top of that, we can still have the 'no bribing AI cities' rule, or maybe a 'no spy' rule....?
Parties are, by nature designed to separate and segregate people. Something we don't want to do on CFC. Also, it can very easily lead to flaming, trolling, and fighting. The advisors are as close to a party system as we will get. If the demo part of the game was concentrated on more, people would be having discussions about wanting to build a cannon (military), instead of a caravan (trade), instead of a library (science).
As Octavian X pointed out, we don't really have enough people to try any sort of party system anyways. And I'm sure people would like to be on the 'winning' party so those that are having less influence will most likely just stop playing. So, even if it started as a multi-party system, I think it would end as a single party system. I don't want to have to spend all my time in here watching people like I did for the Civ 3 Demo game.
Maybe we can have soemthing like a 20 City Challenge.
Then, we can have two main options for AI cities:
1.) We can attack AI cities, but not occupy them. If we can't raize them, then we have to leave it until it can be raized. This would give the added difficulty of leaving troops behind to watch cities, as well as give us longer supply lines, and, on top of that, any Wonders the AI builds will be unusable to us.
2.) We can occupy AI cities, but not build any new ones once we reach our 20 city limit.
On top of that, we can still have the 'no bribing AI cities' rule, or maybe a 'no spy' rule....?
Similar threads
- Sticky
