The 1st DG VI disucssion thread.

I'm loosing my interest in DG V because of this war-talk. I get the feeling for many citizen this game is about "fastest conquest" or "Fastest victory". And I am saddened buy it.

As far as I see it the DemoGame is about forming a government of Real Life people who try to solve Governmental issues and our nation's problems against the background of a civilization game.
War is of course part of a government, but it doesn't have to be the major part of it. Especially since our goal is a Diplomatic victory.

All this wartalk (Iroquois, Babylon, France and Zulu have been named as next 'target' :shakehead: ) makes me sick .

If you want to wage war, wait till DG VI and choose the difficulty level as Emperor, Deity or Demigod (C3C). This level is monarchy and war is too easy. It removes so much task from the elected offices of Trade, Foreign affairs, culture and the Governors in favor of the Military and the President that it unbalances the game. The design for DG V was for a Diplomatic victory and the offices were created and given an amount of power which balances this. But all this war is unbalancing all this.

So:
As so many citizens seem to desire war; we can set up DG VI (after DG v)as a war game. Difficulty: DemiGod, redesigned military office (minister of Offensive warfare and Minister of Defensive forces), rulings on who sets buildqueues and who can override them (if any), we'll redesign the constitution, the office of Domestic, the presidency etc. to suit the government to our desires for the game.
I just ask: "Can you restrain your aggressiveness till DG VI".

I don't think that the desire for war will last beyond the Babylonians. The call for war against the Iroquois was very close and it would only take 2 citizens to switch to no war when it comes to Zulu and France. I am one of those citizens as I will not support an offensive war after the Iroquois and Babylonians have been dealt with. I think war will be done by the end of this term or early next term.

I also don't like the idea of a DG Six war game. War is a part of many civ players early game, but I don't think it should be the pre-defined goal of a future game.

As far as DGV, we still need to get a decision on target victory condition. Since we've had some discussions, I think we should aim for some polls to establish a mandate for Term 4 to establish at least that Terms target. If we want a Diplomatic victory then we will need to concentrate on treating everyone else nicely. If we decide for "Space" or 100K then we should look into getting a second Core established around a FP.

Though I'm not losing my interest, it seems all games are starting to become similar - ancient age rush with swords, middle age knights and/or cavalry, industrial age tanks if we get there, etc, etc.

We should *only* go to war if a nation attacks us. We can always prepare by building units on our borders, etc, but don't try to conquer the continent. I've seen in the end of DG3 and DG4 how we can "win" by dominating the world just by military, even if that wasn't our victory condition. So why don't we see if we can win peacefully?

About DG VI: we need a variant of some sort, I think. Even if it's as simple as no offensive wars, or we must always give into demands, or as *fun* as a 5CC - each province has it's own governor which is in charge of one city. And yes, I do believe we should go up a level - Emperor is my preferred, though DemiGod would not be fine. Do not be afraid to lose the game! You don't want it too easy.

I don't think we will make conquest game out of this. I'm for vendetta vs Iros and Babs. We should kill Iros and get Babs outer cities...
Other than that I don't see why would we attack other nations. Zulus have done nothing to annoy us and France also.
From the point when we end wars with Iros and Babs this is probably going to be peaceful game. It would be too boring just to build improvements and sit tight...

I'd like Demogame VI to be higher difficulty to increase chalenge but I don't see the reason to go for conquest victory We should play for fun and see what happens, our aims always change.... We should try playing Conquest version of Civ, maybe we would have more players but I don't have idea would that really happen...

invy said:

I... We should try playing Conquest version of Civ, maybe we would have more players but I don't have idea would that really happen...

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree with tplaying the conquest version. By playing the lowest level of Civ3 we have people that can look at any save. If we were to play conquest then many people would never be able to open the saves and their involvement would necessarily be limited. I can't think of many positions that could be done without being able to run the game. Maybe Science and Culture - but they would depend on others to check the statuses and get screen shots.

This is not a discussion on version of Civ for DG VI. It's about
"If the citizens want to wage war, why do it in a setup that was designed to be fun to try to achieve a Diplo victory, instead of waiting for DG VI where we can setup the game as such ??".

We're playing on Monarch, how easier can it get? If we wanted a real challenge that would force us NOT to win easily and wage wars constantly, we need to move the difficulty level up. Monarchy isn't much of a challenge, especially given the stage we're at and the leadership we have.

I would like Conquests, or at least PTW. Vanilla Civ3 lacks the many features I enjoy, like renaming units.

Moderator Action: Blackheart, see post #6 -Rik

Rik, I agree that was OT. I appologize for my part in the thread-jacking.

On your topic, I have seen no evidence supporting any doctrine or mandate of a target Diplomatic victory for DGV. Can you point me to some discussion and/or polling threads that indicate this?

It would be interesting to see how many people would like to play a DG in Conquests.

My apologies. IDK if a diplo victory is adviseable at this point, especially with China and France as growing powers.

I believe there was a poll way back when in July or August right after DGIV to set up this DG. We can always change our goals though, can't we?

MOTH said:

(..) On your topic, I have seen no evidence supporting any doctrine or mandate of a target Diplomatic victory for DGV. Can you point me to some discussion and/or polling threads that indicate this?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately no. It was moved from the DG IV fora to the DG V Fora, but as you can see the DG5 early days (term 1 and just before term 1) are missing from the DG V-citizens section and the DG V-main section. They seem to be lost...

I will continue looking for this and post it when found.

Simple - the group of people currently running the DG like war. They want a fast game, with fast turn-around times. Diplomacy takes time, thought, planning and effort. War with our current settings, with our UU, with our Civ, are a joke.

Quite honestly, if we decide for the next game that our goal is a non-military victory, that's gotta be in the Constitution. Explicitly. As in "We will not accept any victory condition earned through conflict. We will function as a peaceful nation, responding as needed to threats, but never threatening."

That might even need to come as a dictate from the mods, as there are a great many people that don't want a challenge (note the difficultly level and the desire for a war).

-- Ravensfire

We should go for Emperor regardless, those advocating war at Monarchy level is just shooting at sitting ducks. Simple mathematics tells us that war at this stage will be a walkover victory. Again, it is the DP leadership that fails in making the chat as the center
of power, and evading a doctrinal game where people can choose major strategic crossroad decisions. Herein is the problem. People are too impatient to read and write, and want the quick fox McDemogame solution on steroids with optimal micromanagement,.
Too much thinking is considered bureaucracy, and some players would rather shoot down all alternatives coming up rather than thinking constructively.
Again, there are those advocating ONE TRUTH vs. DOCTRINAL OPTIONS vs. Micromanage to success with limited popular input.

Raven: I agree the constitution would be the place this goal definition should be located. A constitutional change, within a DG but also in between DG's takes a large number of "yes" votes. I fear the proposal will bounce.

"Dictate from the Mods" - I do not like that. I myself don't want to use my mod-ship to force those kind of limitations on the DG, especially if there is no majority to support it. I prefer to give that power to the people. Personally I wholeheartedly support a non-war Demogame, but in the end I do not (and don't want to) make that decision.

Rik Meleet said:

As so many citizens seem to desire war; we can set up DG VI (after DG v)as a war game. Difficulty: DemiGod, redesigned military office (minister of Offensive warfare and Minister of Defensive forces), rulings on who sets buildqueues and who can override them (if any), we'll redesign the constitution, the office of Domestic, the presidency etc. to suit the government to our desires for the game.
I just ask: "Can you restrain your aggressiveness till DG VI".

Click to expand...

I think the answer to that is "No", Rik. I don't see any reason why hawkish players would sublimate their aggression because of the promise of making the next DG a "war game" (which I would imagine many people-- myself included-- would fight against).

As much as I would like to see our nation turning away from violence, I think there's really only one way to do it. It's also the simplest way. Elections. Think a certain minister or president is leading us down the wrong path? Don't vote for them next term. Or, run for the office yourself! Hopefully, the recent controversy over whether or not to go to war has stirred up the citizenry enough to give voters a choice for whom they want in office.

This is how democracy works. Sometimes the WOTP goes your way, sometimes it don't. Impossing artifical restrictions like "no going to war this DG" or "we'll focus on war next time" limit the freedom and democracy that the Demogame is based on. It cheapens the game, and the democratic process as a whole.

Some of us do not think that war in Monarch is easy. Maybe we are to much focused on war. I think we should focus on the southern Civs and then take things from there. I joined this game so I could learn how to play Civ better.

Rik Meleet said:

Unfortunately no. It was moved from the DG IV fora to the DG V Fora, but as you can see the DG5 early days (term 1 and just before term 1) are missing from the DG V-citizens section and the DG V-main section. They seem to be lost...

I will continue looking for this and post it when found.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I have found this thread and this followup thread by following links in the DGIV archived threads. It is interesting to note that the choice of a 'noble' varient barely failed to get a majority of votes.

Bit off topic regarding the missing threads:
I also did some investigation and I note that no thread with activity before 2 months ago appears in the DGV forums. Both of the above 2 lists DGV in the path at the top. From this I surmise that there is a forum parameter that hides threads older than a certain time frame.

Rik, is this something in control of the mods or is this something Thunderfall needs to change?

Ashburnham said:

(..)As much as I would like to see our nation turning away from violence, I think there's really only one way to do it. It's also the simplest way. Elections. Think a certain minister or president is leading us down the wrong path? Don't vote for them next term. Or, run for the office yourself! Hopefully, the recent controversy over whether or not to go to war has stirred up the citizenry enough to give voters a choice for whom they want in office.

Click to expand...

That's not the case and not the solution; the Minister is virtually powerless if the citizens want something the Minister doesn't want (him) herself.

This is how democracy works. Sometimes the WOTP goes your way, sometimes it don't. Impossing artifical restrictions like "no going to war this DG" or "we'll focus on war next time" limit the freedom and democracy that the Demogame is based on. It cheapens the game, and the democratic process as a whole.

Click to expand...

Agreed.
But the WOTP is also ignored in the Victory Goal. I agree we don't neccesarily have to pin ourselves down on an earlier poll, but it should never be the case that things that have been agreed on can be pushed away this easily.
I'm sick and tired of voting "no war" after every single Turnchat against every single nation we know in every term.

Rik

I agree wholeheartedly. I know I am more hawkish than you, but I support more a doctronal approach to the sudden mob rule overturning a decision that needs continuity to work. We could make a set of constitutional amendments that requires 2/3 majority to stop wonder-builds for swords for example, or to overturn a major doctrinal decision that some has put much work into. As it is, it is way to easy to agitate and whip up some spontaneous opinion to overturn some well thought through doctrine. If it stands as it is, one can just make some inflammatory statement and change the end-result with a quick post. The Veto powers are so strong right now, that now one would even dare to put too much thought into an idea or solution.

MOTH said:

Interesting. I have found Bit off topic regarding the missing threads:
I also did some investigation and I note that no thread with activity before 2 months ago appears in the DGV forums. Both of the above 2 lists DGV in the path at the top. From this I surmise that there is a forum parameter that hides threads older than a certain time frame.

Rik, is this something in control of the mods or is this something Thunderfall needs to change?

Click to expand...

The default amount of time apparently is 2 months. You can change one of the display options at the top.