Planning cIV BTS MTDG III

I think people are mature enough that limiting the game to just 2 teams is not necessary. Indiansmoke and slaze proved that thoroughly in this game by playing on even though Indian hated the map (and actually stated before the game started that he would leave the game if it was a map like the one we were on - he did not leave) - and slaze knew he was fighting a battle Merlot could not win.

Of course people love to complain - that's part of the diplo and the charm of a MTDG as far as I can tell. But even people who have been outright fighting are still being polite - if a bit pointed - to one another in this forum, and this thread. I'll still be advocating 4+ teams, as I think a 2-team game is going to be more boring than the current game has been. The initial 3-6 months of the current game were very exciting, with lots of theorizing on what the other teams were doing in regards to diplo and so forth. I would miss that in a 2-team game. :)
 
4 teams is a good number, and put in on Pangaea. Even if tech trading is on, there won't be any alliance as unbreakable as the ETTT if any team can properly invade another. If we weren't all on islands, there was a very good chance that a settlement dispute between CDZ and Quatronia could have turned into war, I think betraying the ETTT was floated as an idea in Quatronia at one point.

With only two human teams, the only interesting diplo moment comes when one team betrays the other. In the current civ 3 MTDG, we have 4 teams, and the diplomacy has been very interesting so far. With tech trading off on a small Pangaea map, teams have to very carefully prioritize their techs, and no alliance is really very safe due to the ease of betraying someone- there's no island to hide on.
 
I would also like to maintain more then 2 teams as well. I think in fact it would be interesting to try to make these games open to more then just Conquest victories, a two team game really seems to narrow down the field to that option only.
 
I would also like to maintain more then 2 teams as well. I think in fact it would be interesting to try to make these games open to more then just Conquest victories, a two team game really seems to narrow down the field to that option only.
I agree that starting the game with only 2 teams limits the diplo options dramatically, but I don't think that domination /conquest is the only option. In fact if we went with Blubmuz idea of putting each of the 2 teams on their own continent, it might make space race preferable, because the continents would be like impregnable fortresses, making conquest nearly impossible. Also, with only 2 teams, culture victory might be more feasible, because then you would have an easier path to grabbing wonders with such limited competition for them.

Also, with a few AI buffer civs, diplomatic victory would be a real possibility, instead of the pipe dream that it is with all player-controlled civs. AI civs would also compete for Wonders, religions and first-to bonuses (like Music), which is why I mentioned adding AIs.

Caledorn makes a compelling point though. The early race to meet, greet and establish relationships with other teams is one of the most exciting parts of the game, and it would be sad to lose that. I guess we need to debate long and hard about what worked and what did not work in the past MTDG games. Maybe before we start advertising, we should flesh that out more. Here is my not by any means exhaustive list:

1. Sequential turns, with 'Random Seed' turned on- Although this makes the game slower, it removes the need for turn order rules/controversies

2. Shorter is better - Interest dwindles as the game drags on, so we should try to have a game that ends in a year or less, however that can be done. Maybe smaller maps, Pangea, closer starts, faster speed, shorter turns, who knows. Tech trading speeds up the game, but tech alliances seems to kill interest so its a catch 22.

3. Less downtime at the beginning - Maybe advanced starts or more settlers at the beginning

4. Resource (especially :food:) rich starts - This was a slam dunk and should be kept for sure, because poor starts kills interest right off the bat

Anything else?
 
Also, with a few AI buffer civs, diplomatic victory would be a real possibility, instead of the pipe dream that it is with all player-controlled civs. AI civs would also compete for Wonders, religions and first-to bonuses (like Music), which is why I mentioned adding AIs.

This, I agree with. :)

1. Sequential turns, with 'Random Seed' turned on- Although this makes the game slower, it removes the need for turn order rules/controversies

I agree with this too.

2. Shorter is better - Interest dwindles as the game drags on, so we should try to have a game that ends in a year or less, however that can be done. Maybe smaller maps, Pangea, closer starts, faster speed, shorter turns, who knows. Tech trading speeds up the game, but tech alliances seems to kill interest so its a catch 22.

Agreed as well. We need to figure out some way to make the games last for less than a year, so we're not left in the position we have been in recently where I am now in my third team for this one game because of the lack of turnplayers.

4. Resource (especially :food:) rich starts - This was a slam dunk and should be kept for sure, because poor starts kills interest right off the bat

Equal footing is necessary, if not plain vital, for the game to be interesting for all teams. I liked the resource dispersion in this game. All teams had at least one unique luxury resource that they could trade with the other teams, which made an extra fun factor in the diplogame. :)
 
The no score mod might help because you can't see as much about what's going on with the other teams.

I'd really like a utility the compares the potential of the start positions, in terms of :food: :hammers: :gold: :health: :) and resources within a radius (15 or 20 tiles perhaps) of each settler position. The map maker could use that to ensure strategic balance while maintaining tactical (MM) diversity.

I'd be worried that just two teams would feel like a 1v1 between the strongest players on each team, with the other members of the team just along for the ride.
 
The no score mod might help because you can't see as much about what's going on with the other teams.
Yes I played a pitboss once with this mod, and it was interesting to play without scores or graphs or demographics available.
I'd really like a utility the compares the potential of the start positions, in terms of :food: :hammers: :gold: :health: :) and resources within a radius (15 or 20 tiles perhaps) of each settler position. The map maker could use that to ensure strategic balance while maintaining tactical (MM) diversity.
Couldnt the mapmaker count these out manually? That would be a pain though:(. Also, I guess with a utility it would be much faster and more accurate:);)
I'd be worried that just two teams would feel like a 1v1 between the strongest players on each team, with the other members of the team just along for the ride.
;) I think some of that happens anyway right? So in a way, its already like that.

One thing though, what if we did one Merlot-style, elect a King team, and one pure Democratic team. Then all the players would get to participate how they wanted, by electing a King or by voting on individual team actions.
 
Turning off Espionage will do the same thing.
 
When I turned off Espionage for a game it removed the ability to see anything about my opponents, there were no graphs. I had just wanted a game without spys but then I found to my dismay that I couldn't even see graph information on the AI Civs.
 
I take it from the yawning silence that there's not much actual interest in a next game anyway, regardless of the rules.
 
:) the people just return from holidays. Hope you all spent them nice.
 
So I guess there is no interest in playing another one of these games?

I would be, if that in any way can get the ball rolling!
 
Here is my sour grapes two cents on how to improve on next game for better experience:

1. Map design and game settings must be thoroughly balanced. No offence to map designers (you had a though job) but in this game map design was completely uncompatible with tech trading on option and with 6 teams. Tech trading when there is no direct threat to the nation until Astronomy just asks for 4 vs 2 alliance. With different map tech trading could work and this map could have been really interesting e.g. with no tech trading and marathon speed.

2. Uneven number of teams could work better in long run than even numbers. I do also believe that imbalance is an emergent property of any multiplayer strategy game. However, too big of an inbalance (e.g. 5 vs 2, 4 vs 1) tends to result at least in other games I've played in teams in bigger side pondering, who's next.

That being said, I'm actually in favour of emergent unfairness in conflict oriented multi player strategy games. If a game is essentially a zero sum game (someones gain is others loss), with multiple players someone will eventually get living daylights beaten collectively out of them by everyone else left. However, what I'm not cool with is a game that effectively is over for some players or teams very soon after the beginning but it still takes a significant time to get out of the game. That in my opinion is poor design. Think of Monopoly the board game for example. When played with more than two players it usually is evident after first few rounds around the board that who is going to drop out first. It still can take over an hour or so to get out of the game. IMO, this round was quite a bit like Monopoly game in that respect.

BTW, I'm game for a new MTMG (Multi Team Monarchy Game :D). That is, I'm in at least if there would be a possibility play in a monarchy like team. As far as I'm concerned, team Merlot was a succesful experiment on different approach on online game team management. Even though the game did not go perfectly for us, we played it to the bitter end. Biggest thanks go to Indiansmoke and Slaze of course but actually quite many of us were still more or less active until the bitter end. And apparently some of us are already begging for another round of punishment :)
 
Yeah I agree with the Tech trading off, it very quickly became blackmail.
 
Tech trading off and inviting other civ sites teams are both great ideas.

Kudos to Indiansmoke, King Slaze and the whole team Merlot for their fierce and manly stance to the end.
 
Top Bottom