Is there any interest in an IntersiteDG

[...]
 
Last edited:
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:
  1. Cyc (DG)
  2. Lanzelot (SG)
  3. TheOverseer714 (SG)
  4. Eclipse4449 (DG)
  5. CommandoBob (DG)
  6. Calis (DG)
  7. Moff Jerjerrod (DG)
  8. Bowsling (DG)
  9. I. Larkin (SG)
  10. templar_x (SG)
  11. Chamnix (DG)
  12. Memento (SG)
  13. Sparthage (DG)
  14. AutomatedTeller (DG)
  15. EvilConqueror (DG)
  16. ignas (SG)
  17. 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.
 
What is "Lembot?

Lembot is a "user" of civforum. All its postings 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?
 
Top Bottom